Academic free speech or right-wing grievance?

A vociferous group of scientists is presently articulating the idea that academic freedom is under attack from within academia. Examples of supposed suppression of free expression often involve diversity, equity, and inclusivity e ﬀ orts by universities, especially diversity considerations in faculty hiring, but also include examples where academics have been censured or disciplined for racist, sexist, or transphobic speech. Free-speech libertarians advocate for a de ﬁ nition of academic freedom in which no remark is in ﬂ ammatory enough to warrant consequences, even when such remarks are unsupported by (or unconnected to) academic scholarship. The present work o ﬀ ers an evidence-driven analysis to support the contention that this misconstrues the role of academic freedom, which is not imperiled by the notion that there should be social or professional consequences for some antisocial or abusive speech. Troublingly, the rhetoric employed by self-proclaimed defenders of free speech often bears striking similarities to the language of resentment that is used in contemporary political discourse to express right-wing grievance that is centered around White heterosexual male identity. Phrases such as “ cancel culture ” and “ woke ideology ” , used as pejoratives, are favored not only by free-speech hardliners but also by politicians who are working to dismantle the academic tenure system in the U.S. Misappropriated terms such as “ critical race theory ” are used to defend new laws that restrict classroom and workplace discussion of race and gender identity. The present work argues that those who wish to have an honest debate about the limits around freedom of speech need to engage that conversation in a manner that avoids resonance with the language of White (heterosexual, cisgender male) supremacy, lest their arguments provide intellectual cover to those who would attack historically marginalized communities. Suggestions for countering regressive academic culture are provided, along with a data-driven discussion of diversity considerations in faculty hiring. An emergent theme is that the academic status quo supports White male supremacy, therefore complacency by tenured academics will perpetuate that situation.

1 Preface: equity versus free speech In 1964, a decade aer the U.S. Supreme Court declared that racially segregated schools are inherently unequal, Derrick Bell was a young attorney litigating desegregation cases in Mississippi.In ten years, the needle had barely moved on racial integration in the American South, with only 2% of Black children attending majority-White schools. 2 Racial integration of public schools in America would reach its high-water mark by 1990, 2,3 and shortly thereaer Bell (who had since become the rst tenured African-American Professor of Law at Harvard 4 ) would put forward the following thesis. 5lack people will never gain full equality in this country.Even those herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than temporary "peaks of progress," short-lived victories that slide into irrelevance as racial patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance.This is a hard-to-accept fact that all history veries.We must acknowledge it and move on to adopt policies based on what I call: "Racial Realism".This mind-set or philosophy requires us to acknowledge the permanence of our subordinate status.Such was the abject frustration out of which critical race theory (CRT) was born, with Bell as one of its founders. 4,6The framework of CRT was constructed in an effort to understand the implications of structural racism that is hard-wired into institutions, and a fundamental premise is that racism is ordinary, not exceptional. 7Some might prefer to call it "implicit bias", if only because they are uncomfortable with the idea that racism can manifest as anything short of a racial slur or a raciallydriven denial of employment, i.e., that it can be institutionalized. 80][11] A central tenet of CRT is that individuals can perpetuate the power structures of White supremacy even while expressing a genuine desire to eradicate racism. 124][15] Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr's admonition to "remain awake through a great revolution", 16 which has origins in the Black vernacular of "staying woke", [17][18][19][20] has also been twisted beyond recognition, emerging as the pejorative term "woke ideology".0][21][22][23] It is disappointing, although not entirely surprising, that some in the academic and scientic communities are willing to engage in this type of rhetoric,  with seemingly little regard for the attacks on marginalized communities that this language empowers. I ndit unsurprising, because my experience suggests that despite academia's liberal reputation, many tenured academic scientists exemplify a form of centrism in which privilege manifests as freedom from concern over the consequences of one's language.Tenured academics (myself included) are individuals for whom the status quo has worked out very well, with unparalleled job security and limited scrutiny of our activities.Those freedoms are beginning to erode, not because of "woke ideology" but as a result of a mobilized right-wing political movement that has set sights on what it perceives as bias against conservative ideologies within academia.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Nevertheless, some in the academic science community would echo the language that is used by "anti-woke" populists, in order to criticize what they perceive as eroding freedom of speech.In doing so, these defenders of free speech risk giving aid and comfort to the genuine enemies of academic freedom, in a misguided effort to defend an interpretation of free speech in which words have no consequences.
The genesis of my thoughts on these matters lies in several recent essays published in scientic journals, [24][25][26][27] whose authors implore the scientic community to "resist cancel culture" 27 in favor of a freedom of speech that is never precisely dened but in whose defense the authors invoke a politicized catchphrase.(Just like "woke ideology", the phrase "cancel culture" has been coopted from its origins in progressive activism. 56) In numerous other examples, 28-49 members of the scientic community have attacked what they perceive as "woke ideology", "political activism", or "critical race theory" within the scientic enterprise.They have adopted the talking points of right-wing grievance politics with uncanny precision, in order to mount a defense of "free speech" that is simultaneously an assault on diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) efforts by universities.In what follows, I will examine the nature of the speech that these authors wish to defend, the biases that they choose to ignore, and the bedfellows that they make by framing their arguments in the language of White resentment.I will argue that the semantics of these arguments matter, in terms of who they empower and who is disenfranchised, and that today's free-speech movement within academia is an implicit defense of an academic culture dominated by White, heterosexual, gender-conforming men.This movement deserves to be taken seriously, if only to prevent backsliding that may erase what modest gains have been made towards diversifying the scientic community.
2 Free speech should not mean freedom from consequences What does "free speech" mean?To certain people, it connotes the freedom to say whatever one wants, in any forum that one wants, and without consequences, as if this is somehow their birthright.I will call this the "birthright" denition of free speech, 57 and it seems to be the one favored by those academics who frame their arguments in the language of conservative grievance politics.  Thesessays dene the concept of free speech largely by means of examples where the authors believe it has been curtailed.8][29] Language guidelines adopted by scholarly journals, in an effort to avoid bigotry in scientic literature, are also offered as examples of suppression. 26,28ists are assembled of academics who have supposedly been "cancelled", 24,34 and the climate of contemporary academia is compared to the atmosphere that existed under totalitarian governments in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and North Korea; 25,[27][28][29]35 to China's Cultural Revolution; 46 to the anti-Communist "Red Scare" of 1950s America; 29,39,49 and to the self-censure practiced by Copernicus and Galileo, under threat of death. 24Rebuttals to some of these arguments can be found elsewhere, [58][59][60][61] but a brief recapitulation will keep my arguments self-contained.
2][63][64] (Haber developed chemical weapons in deance of the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907. 62) It is something else entirely to bestow an eponymous honoric upon such an individual, such as the Fritz Haber Institute in Berlin.Naming the phenomena is a matter of historical accuracy but the honoric implicitly and undeservedly celebrates its namesake's humanity. 60ndividuals are entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to a platform for those opinions in a scholarly scientic journal.69,70 The journal was accused of engaging in viewpoint discrimination, 36 for withdrawing a polemic that encouraged a culture of blind obedience by graduate students, singled out Chinese scientists as perpetrators of fraud, and decried efforts to diversify academia.However, every journal editor acts as a gatekeeper and it is no more outrageous for a publisher to decline content that fails to meet community standards than it is for Science or Nature to decide that a particular submission lacks sufficient impact to grace its pages.
Is the Hudlický incident, or the wave of renamed buildings across college campuses, [71][72][73][74][75] a sign of some climate shi amongst academics, away from free speech?Hardly.Renaming buildings is an exercise in re-evaluating institutional values, and Prof. Hudlický continued to enjoy free speech as a tenured academic until his death in 2022.
To substantiate the idea that a polar shi in intellectual freedom is underway, however, some have cited surveys suggesting that Americans' self-censorship presently exceeds levels reported during the McCarthy era of anti-Communist inquisitions. 29,39This claim warrants some clarication.Data from the U.S. suggest that conservatives self-censor more than liberals, 76 but also indicate that self-censorship is driven by "micro-environments" consisting of friends, family, and neighbors. 76Data from Germany indicate that identication with the far-right Alternativ für Deutschland party is the best predictor of selfcensorship. 77In the U.S., tolerance for offensive speech regarding race, gender, and religion is on the decline, 78 perhaps suggesting that support for the birthright denition of free speech is also waning.In view of this, increasing self-censorship might be a signal that mainstream society has increasingly little tolerance for bigoted views, and that the bigots understand this.
In my own experience, a few friends and colleagues have articulated a feeling that they are no longer able to say certain things in the workplace, lest they be persecuted by some imagined "diversity police".My response is to ask for real examples.What is it that you wanted to say but did not, for fear of retaliation or condemnation?Perhaps it is something that might previously have gone unchallenged but that we should have been policing long ago.Maybe strong reactions to "cancellation" represent nothing more than persons who have traditionally wielded authority being told for the rst time that a younger and more inclusive generation doesn't like their ideas. 79Perhaps some of the same people who have long created unwelcoming environments are now triggered by the slightest pressure to consider how their words are received.
1][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91] Typically, there is some offensive or inammatory remark that is euphemized by free-speech hardliners, in order to minimize the culpability of the provocateur in question.Thus, for example, Prof. Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania is described as a "rhetorical grenade thrower" 92 for suggesting that the U.S. "will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites". 93Her defenders question whether those remarks are sufficient evidence of a White supremacist attitude, 94 and they attempt to mollify her racism via paraphrase, suggesting that she is merely advocating for "immigration preferences that would advantage those already most culturally similar to the U.S.". 34In a separate example, a decision by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to sever its relationship with physicist Alessandro Strumia [95][96][97] was suggested to be retaliation for a bibliometrics analysis in which he questioned whether women truly face discrimination in physics. 24,34,499 As a nal example, when the University of Victoria declined to renew an adjunct affiliation with Dr Susan Crockford, 100 a narrative emerged that she had run afoul of the climate-change orthodoxy.24,100,101 In reality, Crockford has a long history of climate-change denial that is unsupported by scholarly publications. 80,81Surveying this landscape, I am le to wonder precisely what lost freedom is being mourned.Tenured academics who have become embroiled in controversy have generally retained that status, with a few exceptions.90 For the most part, consequences have been limited to social humiliation, forfeiture of some academic kudos or titles (as with Prof. Strumia), [102][103][104] temporary suspension or reassignment of teaching duties (Prof.Wax), 88,105 or retractions along the lines of the Hudlický incident.106 These consequences do not strike me as overly severe, and in my view the concept of academic freedom should not protect one's right to espouse bigotry, especially if it creates a hostile workplace or learning environment.In a few instances, positions have been rescinded when it came to light that individuals had expressed extremist views unsupported by scholarship, as with Dr Crawford.80,81 In another example, postdoctoral scholar (and selfdescribed Islamophobe 107 ) Noah Carl saw his fellowship at Cambridge revoked when it came to light that he had authored pseudoscience papers on topics such as "race science" and "genetic intelligence". 82,[107][108][109][110] These were presented at a notorious eugenics conference held in secret, [111][112][113] and a subsequent investigation by Cambridge concluded that the scholarship in question was of such poor quality that it "fell outside any protection that might otherwise be claimed for academic freedom of speech".114 The case of Dr Carl illustrates the crucial distinction between academic freedom, 115,116 which is based on scholarship and enjoys strong protections within the tenure system, 90,91 and a perceived right (by some) to make inammatory remarks at will, about any topic whatsoever.Free-speech libertarians seek to defend the latter, oen by conating it with the former, 90,91 but academic freedom is not the same as absolution or immunity from the consequences of extramural speech. 89,90,117 o suggest that White supremacist language should be sheltered from consequences simply because the speaker holds the title of tenured professor is an absurdity on par with suggesting that academic freedom should protect a research program constructed around a at-Earth hypothesis, young-Earth creationism, or phrenology.Although the U.S. Constitution protects free expression from government intervention, even where phrenologists are concerned, those protections generally do not extend to employer-employee relationships.The particulars of which extramural speech should threaten a faculty member's employment is not a debate that I am willing to have in the abstract, as it requires careful consideration of individual circumstances and (ideally) structures within universities whereby such cases can be adjudicated by other faculty, who are more insulated from political inuence as compared to administrators.90,117,118 In any case, the distinction between speech and academic freedom is one that is too seldom recognized by academics.
My own assessment of these incidents is that a modern climate of consequences culture 60,119 is beginning to manifest in the form of long-overdue pushback against noxious viewpoints.There should be consequences for antisocial speech, and no one's academic freedom is legitimately imperiled by a socialmedia version of Newton's third law.7][128] ) These data are sometimes construed as evidence that Gen Z is less open-minded and more intolerant than previous generations, [129][130][131] but perhaps what the data mean is that Gen Z (as a cohort) is simply unwilling to tolerate a racist system any longer. 132It is perhaps not a coincidence that younger Americans are less likely to be White and more likely to be LGBT+ as compared to older generations, [133][134][135][136] although support for offensive speech is even lower outside of the U.S. 137,138 In America, the denition of free speech as it applies to racist, defamatory, or non-inclusive language has become a "contested norm". 123o an older generation that thinks we can all be friends despite our political differences, I would say that this sentiment sounds like an expression of privilege by a dominant elite that seldom nds itself at the pointed end of an attack.High-minded opinion essays bemoan the "illiberal le", [139][140][141][142] which is accused of "wokeness" 141 (as if that were inherently bad), but this attitude fundamentally misconstrues what liberalism is: a school of thought that vigorously defends the right of every person to live a safe and healthy life that is free of fear and intimidation.Given how White (cisgender male heterosexual) elites hold so many of the levers of power, there is an inherent asymmetry in public discourse whenever that group's views clash with those of marginalized communities, 143 who risk being railroaded out of the conversation.][151] As others have noted, 152 free-speech debates are oen not about speech at all but rather about a perceived right to air that speech in specic venues without social backlash, i.e., birthright speech.[29][30][31][32][33][34][36][37][38] This kind of tone policing, 153,154 in which a critique of the emotionality of an argument is used to deect discussion of its substance, has long been used to silence marginalized voices.
Many of the ash points in the academic free-speech debate center on issues of race or gender that arise in the context of DEI efforts by universities.Defenders of speech-withoutconsequences focus on perceived "rights" that they believe are being stripped away, but it is important to contextualize who is making that argument.The freedom to engage in detached, emotionless, and supposedly scholarly debate on these topics, while ignoring unequivocal evidence of systemic racism and sexism within the scientic enterprise, 155-159 is a form of privilege and therefore an assertion of dominance. 160I call it ambient White supremacy, 161 by which I mean behavior that serves to maintain the social hierarchy yet requires little more than inaction. 162Too oen, ostensibly race-and gender-neutral activities that perpetuate the status quo are hardly given a second thought by those with privilege, even while (or perhaps because) the effect is to bolster hegemonic power structures.Much of the current free-speech debate falls into this category because it fails to recognize the stakes for minoritized individuals and ignores the impact of the associated rhetoric on people of color.Public discourse is not a level playing eld for all speakers, and especially with regard to issues of race and equality it does not make "symmetric asks" of all parties. 143hose in positions of power can afford the luxury of polite discussion because they do not endure bias on a daily basis, but those who are targeted by systemic discrimination should not be required to explain why they feel disenfranchised.To minoritized communities, these "debates" are not academic and they are not debates. Voices of minoritized parties are too oen drowned out when a principle of faux objectivity demands a White response to any viewpoint from a person of color.Others have argued that this is the most pernicious form of White supremacy: "the taken-for-granted routine privileging of white interests that goes unremarked in the political mainstream". 164Within academia, debates over diversity considerations in faculty hiring oen invoke this type of "conferred dominance", 160 or in other words, the privilege to ignore context.

Faculty hiring: the meritocracy myth
Free-speech hardliners are taking aim at DEI efforts within academia, specically when it comes to faculty hiring.6][167][168] A frontline organization in these attacks is the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 168 which has a long history of right-wing funding. 1698][179] Rather than assuming that diversity statements are intrusive, however, why not consider that they present an opportunity for candidates to enunciate professional activities (or plans for future activities) that do not naturally nd a home in other parts of an application?To do so recognizes that there are many dimensions to what makes a good scholar, and that a research proposal and publication list may not cover all facets of leadership, mentorship, and pedagogy.
At the nexus of DEI efforts and the free-speech debate sits the case of Prof. Dorian Abbot, whose invitation to deliver a named lecture at M.I.T. was rescinded in the wake of controversy regarding his views on diversity considerations. 104,180Perhaps most notably, Abbot has written that DEI initiatives will sap talent from American universities in a manner analogous to when Jews were expelled from German universities under the Nuremburg Laws, 181 and he has compared DEI efforts and "woke ideology" to Soviet totalitarianism. 43,180(Professor Abbot's lecture was later rescheduled at Princeton, 180,182 and he received a "Hero of Intellectual Freedom" award for his trouble. 182Nevertheless, he subsequently made an appearance on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program to bemoan his "cancellation". 183,184) Some have attempted to reverse victim and offender, 29,34 offering a sanitized version of events in which the courageous Prof. Abbot is merely an advocate for "equal opportunity, fairness, merit-based evaluation, and academic freedom". 29he phrase "merit-based evaluation" is a canard used to justify the status quo, shorthand for refusal to acknowledge implicit bias or the fact that ostensibly objective metrics may encode bias.  Standaized test scores, 198,199 publication rates, [192][193][194][195] citation statistics, 200-205 grant funding, [186][187][188][189][190][191][192] patents, 196 and speaking invitations 197 have all been shown to exhibit bias against minoritized scientists.Women in science win fewer awards [206][207][208][209][210][211] and are less likely to be journal editors 211-213 as compared to men.Inequity begins much earlier, however, especially for people of color.5][226][227][228][229] This legacy affects the preparation of junior scholars, which warrants consideration as we address how merit should be evaluated.
The case for "merit-based evaluation" is best examined against the stark White backdrop of academia.1][232] (Representation by both women and faculty of color drops when only tenure-track positions are considered. 233,234) Increasingly, the undergraduate student body in America does not look like its teachers, as the former has grown from 16% to 46% non-White between 1976 and 2020, 235 consistent with a public grade school population that has been majority non-White since 2014. 236,237Faculty hiring from underrepresented groups is not keeping pace. 2381][242] If present trends continue, by 2060 the overall percentage of underrepresented faculty in the U.S. will lag about 20% behind demographic parity, at both research-intensive universities and liberal arts colleges. 243While some countries are beginning to approach gender parity at entry-level faculty ranks, 244,245 this is only true when the data are aggregated across disciplines.Furthermore, women advance more slowly through the ranks than men, even when the data are corrected for productivity. 2468][249][250][251][252][253] In the U.S., for example, less than 2% of chemistry and biology faculty are Black and only 3% are Hispanic. 252,254In the U.K. in 2013, 18% of rst-year undergraduate chemistry majors identied as Black or minority ethnic (excluding Asian students), 255 yet there was a singular Black faculty member in chemistry as of 2020. 256A partial explanation lies in the dearth of doctoral degrees awarded to students of color, 257-259 e.g., in the U.S. only 3% of physical science Ph.D.s awarded in 2019 went to Black students and only 7% to Hispanic students. 259][262] That said, the widely-used "pipeline" metaphor 263 does not fully explain lack of representation.In 2001, women accounted for more 25% of physical science Ph.D.s awarded annually in the U.S., 264 yet by 2017 more than half of the top-50 chemistry departments still had no more than 20% female faculty, and none had more than 32%. 265265][266][267][268] For the past decade, the fraction of women hired by U.S. universities has been unchanged or has decreased in 107 separate elds of study, 241 despite the fact that women tend to be interviewed at somewhat higher rates than a random sample of applicants would produce. 269Higher rates of attrition 240-242 partly explain why gender disparities are more pronounced at the rank of full professor, 244,245 and for the most prestigious awards and senior editorships. 207,213,270,271ata from the U.K. indicate that the fraction of women who express interest in an academic career plummets from 72% to 37% over the duration of the Ph.D. degree, whereas no signicant drop occurs for men. 240,272In the U.S. in 2016, only 26% of chemistry postdocs were women as compared to 41% of graduate students. 265The pipeline leaks, so the metaphor goes, but oen those leaks are evidence of systemic bias; 156,243,273 something is keeping women and people of color out of academic jobs.For women, documented concerns include work/life balance, [274][275][276][277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284] lack of professional support or mentoring, 272,285 a hyper-masculine workplace culture, 240,286,287 and differential standards that are reported by women but not perceived by their male colleagues. 288For aspiring faculty of color, additional factors include the psychological stress incurred in navigating a professional landscape that expects conformity with the prevailing White hegemonic culture, 156,262,[289][290][291][292][293][294][295] as well as role models whose effort to be colorblind fails to acknowledge racial inequities in student preparation. 296raining additional underrepresented students up to the Ph.D. stage will be an insufficient salve until these underlying factors are addressed.Hiring data across disciplines suggest that the U.S. is approaching a steady state with regard to gender representation in academia, and one that is well below parity. 242hy?One hypothesis is that family considerations limit the participation of women within the current structure of academia.Specically in STEM disciplines, childbirth is a major driver of gender inequity as women leave their elds at much higher rates than men following the birth of a child. 297,298ultural schemas within academia continue to stigmatize motherhood and other caregiver responsibilities, 278,[299][300][301][302][303] despite the fact that childbirth has no long-term effects on academic productivity. 302,3042][303] (Recent successful labor activism at the University of California is an interesting exception, 316 where students won a small subsidy for child care. 317) All of these factors are likely to depress the metrics of potential faculty candidates who have caregiver responsibilities.The more emphasis that we place on those metrics, the more we tilt the supposedly meritocratic evaluation process in favor of candidates with no such obligations.
What can be done to mitigate the compromises that women feel they must make in order to pursue an academic career?University leadership must address abusive workplace culture, 301 including excessive working hours. 315,3184][325][326][327][328][329] As a community, we must normalize the idea of exible work schedules and a work culture that makes home life visible, 315 as women in academia oen report feeling they must deemphasize their role as a caregiver. 302If an expectant mother already has federal grant funding, then administrative supplements are available under limited circumstances, 330,331 but we should not predicate this support on securing extramural funding.3][334] While we are at it, why shouldn't we extend such benets to graduate students and postdocs?If the answer to that question is "cost", then I would ask: what monetary value should we place on equity?Developing or expanding the aforementioned programs would almost certainly help to recruit and retain women in academia. 304atever the underlying causes, it is farcical to suggest that the statistics cited above represent the equilibrium state of a merit-based hiring process.This "unwillingness to name the contours of racism" 335 (or sexism) is a dening characteristic of how White (male) supremacy permeates our culture. 164Out-ofproportion hiring of White men is never viewed as a racial or gender preference, yet every candidate of color risks being labeled a "diversity hire" in the eyes of some.Network effects exacerbate inequality by amplifying the advantages of privileged groups, 192,[336][337][338][339][340] meaning that those who aren't victimized by systemic discrimination actually benet from it.The supposed meritocracy frequently devolves into pattern-matching, with a template that reects the legacy elites who have historically dominated the scientic enterprise. 341hese observations are not inconsistent with the fact that faculty diversity has improved somewhat in recent decades, especially with regard to gender.Studies suggest that older female academics sometimes conform to the values (and unconscious biases) of their male colleagues, in particular a science-above-all mentality and a philosophy of "toughness", 273,342 as well as a belief in meritocratic rather than structural explanations for gender disparities in academia. 343These factors dilute the effect that these women might otherwise have in reshaping academic culture. 273,342That these pioneers have struggled and succeeded is evidence that some women are able to navigate a traditional male power structure, albeit sometimes by adopting stereotypically masculine traits. 344,345Their success, however, need not indicate that the male-dominated power structure is fundamentally changing.Institutionalized discrimination manifests in the way that we support diversity in principle, yet we demand that a diverse cohort succeed according to metrics that were established by a hegemonic White male power structure.There are, however, some signs that younger women may be succeeding in academia without conforming to masculine norms. 342or all of these reasons, terms like "systemic racism" and "systemic sexism" seem inadequate, and only "White male supremacy" properly characterizes a world in which Whiteness and masculinity are the normative standards. 9,164,346Some opponents of DEI initiatives advocate for separating science from morality according to Merton's principle of universality, 25,28,37 which supposes that it is possible to evaluate truth according to criteria that are unaffected by gender or ethnicity.This principle has been used to delegitimize the lived experienced of minoritized groups, 37 ignoring the manner in which the entire academic system is designed around the lived experience of White men.A reality-based analysis must reject Merton's abstract conceit, as the notion that unconscious bias can be eliminated is wishful thinking, inconsistent with scientic data. 347-351Merton's universalism supposes that science is open to anyone with talent, but science is not practiced in a vacuum and our social structures are neither race-nor gender-neutral. 299hat is Bell's "hard-to-accept fact that all history veries". 5evertheless, the idea that science and engineering are strictly meritocratic, apolitical endeavors is an endemic one, instilled from students' earliest training. 3524][355][356][357][358][359] The latter view, however, is also politically partisan, [358][359][360] having been a mainstay of conservative American politics since the 1960s. 360Much of the backlash against DEI efforts reads to me as the politics of White victimhood that emerged as a reaction to the movement for African American civil rights, and which is showcased whenever "merit-based hiring" is framed as the antithesis of "diversity hiring". 361It is a fallacy and an insult to suggest that these strategies are mutually antagonistic, or that merit and diversity constitute a zero-sum game.It is equally absurd to suppose that any unbiased metric exists, according to which candidates can be objectively ranked.Should that metric be the length of a candidate's publication list?Of course not, because the nature and content of the papers matters.(Moreover, the conventional narrative of peak productivity early in one's career does not hold up to detailed scrutiny. 3621][202][203][204] Should it be the ranking of the candidate's doctoral institution?The latter encodes signicant bias, given the overwhelming Whiteness of most elite institutions, many of which actively excluded people of color (as well as women, Jews, and others) for decades if not centuries.Western cultural schemas to evaluate merit evolved in Europe and the U.S. over those same centuries, when science in Western countries was pursued almost exclusively by White men.These paradigms inherently disadvantage women, people of color, and also gender nonconforming men. 299,302,3632][303] To a signicant extent, our entire construction of the academic scientist (and thus our paradigm for "merit") is predicated on the existence of domestic support structures. 299n practice, institutional pedigree is the metric that best correlates with who gets a faculty job, 241,338,[364][365][366][367][368] and a tiny number of institutions account for the majority of U.S. faculty. 241,365For example, half of the chemistry faculty at the top 25 research universities obtained Ph.D.s from just 10 institutions. 369Across all disciplines, 20% of U.S. universities produce 80% of its faculty, 241,367 with just ve institutions accounting for 1 in 8 faculty members. 368One might hypothesize that candidates from these top universities are simply more qualied than their competitors but that assumption is at odds with existing data.3][374][375] In other words, access to resources (including better students 372 and collaborator networks 375 ) serves to amplify faculty productivity at elite institutions, as does the "Matthew effect" of accumulated advantage, 339,376-379 whereby notoriety begets greater recognition for work of comparable quality.In-group bias based on peer networks is also a likely contributor to documented racial disparities in grant funding, [186][187][188][189]191,192 which in turn contributes to documented retention issues for faculty of color. 239,241Experiments with double-blind review produced mixed results on the question of whether it aids underrepresented authors, 380-386 but do suggest that authors from top-ranked universities experience lower acceptance rates when their identities are concealed.[384][385][386][387][388] ) Crucially, individuals who obtain their Ph.D.s from lower-ranked institutions wind up being just as productive at elite institutions, despite differences in pedigree. 339,374Unfortunately, the achievements necessary to attend an elite university (where peer networks begin to foment) represent a form of social capital, and systemic racism ensures that people of color have less of that capital.389 Limitedsubmission "pathway to independence" awards (in the style of the NIH-K99 program, 390 but with a xed number of applicants per institution) have been suggested as a strategy to promote institutional diversity amongst new hires.242 4 Diversity should be empowering, not threatening 7][338][339][340] In reality, "merit" is not so easy to dene or measure, and it is precisely because of that subjectivity that the process is vulnerable to implicit bias; there is always a tendency for successful people to use their own life experience as a paradigm to evaluate others.That homophilicity manifests within the faculty search process in language such as "top person", "star", or "visionary", which is oen used without qualication or quantication, and which is frequently code for promoting White men.The phrase "good t" is an especially widespread form of euphemized bias, [391][392][393][394][395][396] by means of which the denition of merit is redened on-the-y in order to match idiosyncratic credentials of a particular applicant. 397his subjectivity, while daunting, also presents opportunities to broaden how we dene merit.Why shouldn't a candidate's outreach or mentorship activities be considered alongside their discipline-specic technical prociencies?Why shouldn't a candidate's bold ideas regarding how to advance inclusivity be considered alongside their clever proposals for new laboratory experiments?What if a candidate has ideas to address the ways in which introductory science courses disproportionately drive minoritized students out of STEM? [398][399][400][401] Progress towards mitigating that pernicious problem might be worth the equivalent of a considerable number of incremental research articles in an assistant professor's tenure dossier, though it will require researchintensive institutions to embrace and encourage young faculty members who have new ideas about teaching. 402I suggest that a holistic view of faculty hiring must accept that excellence has many facets, including not just research endeavors but also an obligation to teach, mentor, and train new generations of scientists.The latter responsibilities are oen overlooked at research-intensive universities.Women and faculty of color are le to shoulder the burden of mentorship, at signicant professional cost, 403 in what is sometimes called the "minority tax". 404Not coincidentally, women are overrepresented in awards for teaching, mentoring, and service. 206hat said, to ignore mentorship is to create a feedback loop whereby predominantly White Ph.D. recipients from top-ranked institutions continue to dominate academia.Given a student body that is increasingly non-White (46% of U.S. college and university students) and more than half female (59%), 235 we are increasingly depriving students of role models who look like themselves, setting up a self-perpetuating cycle of unsupportive mentoring relationships. 156,405,406][415] As academics, it is our job to ensure that educational resources are accessible to students of all backgrounds, but when our language fails to be inclusive-and rants comparing DEI initiatives to totalitarianism can hardly be considered otherwise-the effect is to maintain and bolster hostile environments for students and coworkers who are not White, or who belong to other historically marginalized groups.This includes the LGBT+ community, which may include as many as 1 in 5 young adults in America. 135,136That community has faced its own representation, retention, and harassment issues within STEM, [416][417][418][419][420][421][422][423][424][425][426][427] sometimes in the form of heteroprofessionalism or the need to hide one's identity in the workplace. 4283][434] Representation matters, 423,429 because it lowers barriers for others to be open.That simple fact has characterized the entire historical evolution of the struggle for LGBT+ rights. 435n contrast, non-inclusive language creates barriers (either implicitly or explicitly) that prevent some students from having the same access to educational resources as their peers.For example, an unwelcoming environment towards LGBT+ students within a particular research group might cause those students to self-select away from that group, closing off entire career opportunities even if students never experience explicit harassment.It is our duty as scholars and educators to make it unambiguously clear that individuals from all backgrounds are valued members of our community, and that means advocating for diversity.
][438][439][440][441][442][443][444] Everyone has blind spots, and building a diverse community of scholars is how we collectively ll those gaps in knowledge, experience, and appreciation, while avoiding "groupthink". 199,445Conversely, the semi-closed academic ecosystem created by non-meritocratic, prestige-driven hiring impacts what research topics are pursued by newly-minted faculty. 446Diversity thus pays dividends for scholarship, and educational practices can create a positive feedback loop.For example, curricula developed around DEI concepts can improve student buy-in by providing real-world context, 447-449 and there is evidence that diversity itself both enhances student engagement 450 and improves graduation rates for underrepresented students. 451o address stark racial disparities in college graduation rates, which do not correlate with secondary school preparation, 452 some have suggested elevating anti-racism studies in higher education. 453Recognizing that racism (whether implicit or explicit) has oen driven both curriculum and scholarship, [454][455][456][457][458] efforts are actively underway to "decolonize" the science curriculum in the U.K. [459][460][461] In pursuing such efforts, one must summon the resolve to face inevitable backlash, as students from culturally homogeneous backgrounds oen perceive anti-racism efforts to be threatening. 3533][464] As scholars, we need to recognize that education is not a race-neutral construct, 9,164 and that an essential part of our job is to provide context and to "educate for critical consciousness". 9The challenges faced by underrepresented students cannot be adequately addressed so long as we insist on viewing society and education through colorblind schema.
3][54][55]513 ) The Florida legislation follows an "intellectual diversity" survey that was sent to faculty, 510 and the Speaker of Florida's House of Representatives made it clear that the goal was to prevent faculty from promoting a "radical agenda". 510,511Who decides what is radical?5][516] Another new Florida law, designed to limit classroom and workplace discussion of race, is literally titled the "Stop WOKE Act". 516-518Florida's governor has described that law, which faces legal challenges, 519 as a ban on CRT. 5206][527][528][529] It is disappointing that some members of the academic community are willing to join conservative politicians engaging in rhetorical sleight of hand.
Just as Noah Carl's Oxford credentials were touted by White supremacists in order to promote eugenics, 113 amplication of right-wing talking points by academic scientists provides intellectual cover for policies and behavior that actually function to restrict free speech, and to embolden attacks on marginalized communities.Consider the following examples.
Several U.S. states have recently passed legislation restricting classroom discussion of gender and sexuality. 5303][534] Florida's governor has characterized such legislation as an effort to eliminate "woke gender ideology" from the curriculum. 535,536A conservative politician with anti-LGBT views was recently selected to lead the University of Florida, [537][538][539] despite strident opposition from within the university. 539,5401][172][173][174][175][176] At least two dozen U.S. states have passed legislation that restricts the ability of educators to discuss race and other "divisive concepts". 565,566][179] Absent serious discussion of race at the classroom level, racist ideologies such as Replacement Theory will continue to spread. 567,568his has led to harassment.With coaching from anti-CRT advocacy groups, White parents in the U.S. state of Georgia mobilized to destroy the career of a Black educator who was set to become a school district's rst-ever coordinator for DEI initiatives. 569Opposition to her appointment was framed as a ght against "woke political understanding". 5697][578] ) In the Oklahoma case, teachers were urged to avoid terms such as "diversity" and "white privilege". 579his has led to violence.1][582][583] Nevertheless, some have tried to blame "cancel culture" for causing young White men to commit acts of mass murder. 584][590] Contemporary enthusiasm for transphobia is especially troubling in view of data indicating that 30-40% of transgender individuals have attempted suicide, [591][592][593][594][595] with transgender adolescents at signicantly greater risk than their cisgender peers. 596Studies suggest that policy changes described above are already having a negative impact on the mental health of LGBT+ youth. 597,598It is therefore notable that LGBT+ teenagers are more than four times more likely (as compared to heterosexual peers) to contemplate suicide. 599They also experience homelessness at far higher rates. 600,60102][603][604][605][606][607][608][609][610][611][612] One example is a controversial study of "rapidonset gender dysphoria", 613 a pseudoscientic term invented and weaponized by the trans-antagonistic community.614,615 When that study was corrected following post-publication review, 616-618 there were accusations (from free-speech hardliners) of editorial interference.30,602,610 In reality, the correction added important clarications such as the fact that data were not collected from the adolescent subjects themselves, nor from clinicians, but only from parents who were recruited from websites known to be skeptical of gender-affirming medical care. 616 Effort to de-platform so-called gender-critical scholars (a term that is itself a form of euphemism) have also drawn concerns over academic freedom.[609][610][611] The gender-critical community has successfully adopted the language of martyrdom and victimization, 548,562,[619][620][621] in order to repackage attacks on transgender people into an ostensibly neutral guise that is palatable to certain establishment liberals who do not ordinarily traffic in right-wing tropes.563,619 It is "laundered extremism", 615 but in reality there is disconcerting overlap between gender-critical activism and far-right ideologies.621 The existence of transgender people threatens those who would dichotomize gender, 626 with gender-critical scholarship oen promoting a form of zero-sum feminism that is eerily reminiscent of White backlash again immigration, diversity hiring, and anti-racism efforts.627 One of the most visible gender-critical feminists is Dr Kathleen Stock, formerly of the University of Sussex, who has become a ashpoint in the free-speech debate.Her writing offers a shiing rationale for excluding trans women from female-only spaces, 628,629 and she has attacked the LGBT+ advocacy group Stonewall for its trans-inclusive activism, 630 suggesting that it exaggerates claims of anti-trans violence and has "turned universities into trans activist organisations". 612 (The is no evidence that allowing access to toilets conforming to one's gender identity leads to any increase in sex crimes.[631][632][633] ) Hundreds of academics signed an open letter decrying Stock's rhetoric for its role in promoting further oppression of the trans community. 87,634 lthough publicly defended by her university in the face of student protests, [635][636][637] Dr Stock ultimately resigned her academic position citing lack of support from colleagues. 638 While ome of the protest efforts against Dr Stock might be characterized as harassment, [607][608][609][610]639 and with the strict caveat that threats of violence should never be acceptable, such incidents cannot reasonably be equated with the intimidation and violence that has been directed against transgender people.640-644 Some have expressed concern that the calamitous departure of Prof. Stock from her academic position may have a "chilling effect" on academic discussions of gender identity, 612 but a competing viewpoint is that one should not expect outspoken bigotry to be met with polite debate.Denial of trans identity is a form of harassment and thus transphobia, 640,645-647 even when couched (as it oen is) in a veneer of concern for the well-being of transgender or gender-questioning individuals.647 When it comes to calling out bigotry, protesting gender-critical speakers, or petitioning universities to investigate "scholarship" that undermines trans identity, I nd it difficult not to sympathize with a community whose very legitimacy is constantly under attack.People should protest the denial of their rights, even when that rejection is camouaged with a pretense of "academic freedom".Transgender rights are human rights, and to abandon the former is to surrender the latter.590 Dehumanizing language aimed at historically marginalized groups, whether spouted by politicians or disguised as scholarship, has the effect of normalizing discrimination and creating a climate that foments stochastic terrorism.44,652 For example, 40% of transgender Britons say they have experienced a hate crime within the past year.658 In the U.S., there are indications that universities are failing to provide an equitable learning environment for LGBT+ students, leading to disproportionately high dropout rates as compared to heterosexual peers.659,660 For students of color, the prevalence of hate crimes reinforces the "battle fatigue" 661 that they already experience at predominantly White institutions.262,290,291,[661][662][663] 6 Standing up: silence is complicity Academics who desire freedom from the consequences of their own language strike me as this generation's "white moderate[s]" (to use King's phrase), unaware or unconcerned that their arguments resonate with the backlash against non-White perspectives that lies at the heart of anti-CRT rhetoric.664 Overwrought concern over "outrage mobs" 24,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][36][37][38] reads like a desperate plea from in-group elites who are terried that they are losing control of the social narrative to a younger generation that is both more diverse and more progressive.665 Likewise, strong reactions to the climate in today's universities can be understood as a reexive defense of the status quo, in the face of a new generation that is disgusted with the racism and sexism that have long been perpetuated by academic institutions.Those of us who belong to the dominant elite-and I certainly count myself in that category-need to recognize our own privilege, 666 and learn to appreciate that what strikes us as ostensibly neutral policy or objective measure oen carries the full force of legacy discrimination and disenfranchisement behind it. Too oe, tenured faculty work to protect the system that put them in a position of privilege, without questioning the assumptions that underlie the institution.This is precisely the power dynamic that CRT was formulated to dissect, and serious scholarship has been dedicated to understanding how paradigms constructed by White men over centuries have distorted our view of scientic achievement.302,667 This is not "woke ideology", but rather critical and essential self-examination.
Suggestions that we should not "politicize" the scientic enterprise, 25,[40][41][42] or that scientic journals should keep social commentary out of their pages, [45][46][47] fail to recognize that doing nothing to address the legacy of racism and unequal representation is itself a social science policy: it is ambient White supremacy.6][157][158][159] In some cases that rejection is explicit, as in calls to avoid injecting concerns about race into science, [40][41][42] with scholarship addressing racial inequality being dismissed as "political activism". 42This is a perfect example of White privilege, in its assumption that the scientic enterprise is unblemished by the racist society in which it exists.Any attempt to question the hegemonic power structure is regarded by the dominant group as inherently political, whereas behavior that perpetuates the status quo (and thus tacitly endorses the hegemony) is taken to be politically neutral.The privilege inherent in "just asking questions" is a tacit but no less pernicious denial of the manner in which those questions attack minoritized communities by reinforcing the norms of a White heterosexual male culture.
Freedom of expression and the freedom to pursue one's own research agenda are factors that have drawn many to pursue academic careers, but the present times call for caution and intentionality.Social pushback against non-inclusive speech is not the enemy of the academic freedom that we cherish, and even for tenured faculty there must be limits. 909][670] Who decides what is controversial versus what is simply inammatory?Who shall pay for security when communities targeted for harassment invariably come out to protest? [146][147][148] Social media has amplied this debate and altered its contours in ways that prevent simple comparisons to the campus free-speech movement at Berkeley in the 1960s. 671n its contemporary incarnation, invitations to radical "altright" speakers are oen intended simply to focus attention on far-right points of view; 668 the outrage and the protests are not a by-product, they are the goal.With regard to these and other campus free-speech issues, there are undoubtedly cases where university officials have overreacted, though perhaps not with nefarious intent, but the complexities are difficult to disentangle when the defenders of birthright speech insist upon euphemizing bad behavior.
It is the duty of decent people not to aid in furtherance of racist ideas, and as members of the academic and scientic communities we cannot allow ourselves to provide intellectual cover for-and thereby lend credibility to-society's worst elements.8][479][480][481][482][483][484][485][486] By some measure, the last few years have seen radical right-wing politics enter mainstream conversations to an extent not seen in a generation. 673Those who advocate for a perceived entitlement to say whatever they want, without fear of backlash, are using their privilege and the megaphone that it provides in order to advance the language of exclusion rather than inclusion, in dangerous resonance with the enemies of progressive social change.These are the elements of genuine illiberalism, and to counter those forces it is incumbent upon the rest of us to hear the voices of those with less privilege and to choose our words in ways that welcome students and colleagues of all backgrounds.
As a prerequisite to any serious discussion, we need to divorce ourselves (and our literature) from the language of White supremacy, from the language of transphobia, and from those who enable or promote either.
Lack of diversity in academia requires structural solutions that go beyond bemoaning the "pipeline", and which recognize that underrepresented scholars-even those who make it to a Ph.D. degree-face real barriers.86][687] These must be introduced in tandem with institutional support and reward structures for DEI activities.674,688 We must ght the reexive urge to defend the status quo against change, and acknowledge that the present way of doing things supports White supremacy. 689 Alog those lines, a common refrain from colleagues is "I support diversity, but.".393 Although the speaker usually trails off, one may easily complete the sentence: ".I am unwilling to do anything beyond pay lip service, especially if it requires changing the way that we do things". The speer might as well admit that he or she supports diversity, provided that everyone acts like a White, gender-conforming man.(This is documented in scholarship and evaluation penalties for non-White faculty.239,404,690 ) Thus we get search committees who triage applicants using curriculum vitae, because that is easier than reading entire research statements, and prestige-based hiring persists. Comlacency supports White male supremacy.As an alternative, consider reading anonymized research and diversity statements, 691 assessed using rubrics, 397,692,693 prior to looking at vitae or recommendation letters.This requires more effort, but no one said that dismantling hegemonic power structures would be easy.695 Search committees need to be vigilant in holding their colleagues accountable and calling out counterproductive behavior.393,696 There is room for debate about tactics, so long as that debate is not overtly hostile to the idea of using diversity as one aspect of a holistic approach to evaluating merit in our future colleagues.Should we have faculty searches that are open only to underrepresented candidates?697 Should we screen applicants based on diversity statements alone?698 Extend the tenure clock for everyone, in order to accommodate childbirth without exacerbating the gender pay gap? 699 I mention these specic examples because they make me uncomfortable, even as an advocate for diversity, yet I am open to discussion.A careful consideration of tactics does not mean that we discard the entire idea of a holistic evaluation of merit.Moreover, these conversations need to acknowledge what Bell called the "permanence of racism": 700 White people being invested in the status quo is not an aberration, it is the norm, 701 and STEM is no exception.[155][156][157][158][159] We must acknowledge the dramatically different lived experience of many underrepresented students as compared to their advisors.To have a truly free and fair debate, we must maintain a clear, bright line between our community and the true enemies of academic freedom, who are working hard to perpetuate the status quo.DEI efforts by universities and scientic societies are not a slippery slope towards totalitarianism but rather good-faith attempts to name the contours of White male supremacy (and of prestige-driven pattern-matching), and in so doing, begin to erode them.
A rst step is to acknowledge that those who are not victims of systemic discrimination are its beneciaries.(Others have said this out loud, 157,702 but many are squeamish.The suggestion that science is anything but a perfect meritocracy is oen perceived as an attack on the integrity of the scientic enterprise itself. 341) It is morally incumbent upon those who have benetted from discrimination-namely, White men-to do some of the work of calling out retrograde ideas when they are encountered, even if they originate with friends or colleagues.Bystander intervention training is a proven strategy to combat sexual harassment and sexual violence, 679,[703][704][705][706] and one may expect that similar strategies can be effective against other objectionable behavior. 422,707Intervention is oen awkward and uncomfortable, but revolutionary change is always disruptive.Don't accept it at face value when a friend or colleague complains that they must self-censor to avoid the "diversity police"; ask for a real example of something that person was afraid to say.Just as words can be political, silence also makes a statement, 708 and ignoring the legacy of racism and sexism in science, along with the ways in which toxic indifference continues to shape our culture, is a capitulation to White male supremacy.The status quo will persist so long as those in power are comfortable doing nothing, or relegating diversity considerations to sideshow discussions.We cannot "just focus on the science", because the manner in which society intersects science is a critical aspect of the scientic enterprise.Instead, we need to speak and act as advocates for social change.What is the purpose of tenure, if not for a struggle such as this?
Beyond being confrontational, take a moment to consider whether you wish to provide a platform to those with noxious ideas.There is no shortage of scientists with tremendous technical accomplishments, so is a person who is committed to the social status quo, or who pushes an agenda of speech without consequences, the best choice for an invited speaker, or for an award?(The Royal Society of Chemistry does not think so. 709,710) When forming leadership committees, or search committees to hire new faculty, consider whether such individuals ought to function as gatekeepers.For such duties, a person's technical prowess is only one consideration.Speech should have consequences because words have ramications, especially when they originate with people in positions of power.Allowing a tenured academic the freedom to pursue their own research agenda does not mean that their biases should be allowed to stall progress towards a more inclusive academic and scientic community.This is not "cancelling" so much as recalibrating. 60It is a necessary step in moving science and society forward.