Independent schools are college preparatory schools designed to prepare and get students into college. However, when those students show up on college campuses unable to think for themselves or engage in what Harvard describes as “free, open, and constructive discourse,” something has gone terribly wrong in their schooling. Colleges are slowly starting to realize they may have a problem. What could they do to address this?
The first step to solving the problem is acknowledging the problem. Next, schools need to create environments where open and free inquiry can exist. Using different approaches, two reputable universities in the Boston area have made an attempt to do so. Let’s use them as examples.
Approach 1 - Instruction and Immersion in Discomfort at Tufts University
The first approach incorporates direct instruction and immersion in “discomfort” in the classroom. An example of this in action has taken place in Professor Eitan Hersh’s classroom at Tufts University. The article “A Conservative Thought Experiment on a Liberal College Campus” by Rachel Slade provides a look into this classroom and is worth sharing with your school community.
Professor Hersh hates the so-called language police. He believes campus rhetoric has evolved to protect students’ feelings and identities to such an extent that it’s nearly impossible to have an honest debate about almost anything. No one wants to hurt anyone else’s feelings. Ironically, on the first day of class, Hersh issues a “trigger warning.” He tells students to expect conversations about intense political issues and that while everyone has “hateful thoughts” from time to time, the spirit of the class is to foster genuine discussion and curiosity. To achieve that, he advises the students to ease up on language policing. “Give each other wiggle room,” he cautions, “because as you try to articulate a position, at first, it may come out wrong.”
“His students confided in him that while inside his classroom, they felt freer to talk about contentious issues than anywhere else. By introducing a refreshingly contrary perspective, in this case, conservative thought, Hersh believes he is somehow taking a lot of the emotional heft out of America’s most gut-wrenching topics and forcing students to find new intellectual muscles to process the right-leaning take.” “We all might find that (Hersh’s classroom) is the safest place for free discourse on any college campus in America.”
Approach 2 - The Addition of Bureaucracy at Harvard
The second approach to creating an environment where viewpoint diversity can exist involves creating more bureaucracy. Harvard recently announced two new initiatives — the Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue Working Group and the Institutional Voice Working Group.
In their letter to the Harvard community, the Interim President and Interim Provost explained: “Success in pursuing this core mission is dependent on free, open, and constructive discourse among the University’s many members. Excellence in discovery and learning requires the ability to advance ideas and explore them fully, to challenge accepted wisdom, to disagree productively, and to recognize that we will often make mistakes as we learn. It is the University’s unwavering commitment to academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas that makes all of this possible.”
It remains to be seen if Harvard’s proposed “working groups” will be able to uphold the value of free inquiry, something the school’s mission has failed to do, given the current demographics and political leanings of the faculty and student body.
Which of these approaches offers the most direct path to, as Slade describes, help students “find new intellectual muscles to process the right-leaning take?”
The problem cannot be solved until schools prioritize viewpoint diversity as part of their diversity missions. The values of free and open discourse and critical thinking must be used to attract and retain faculty, staff, and students, starting in K-12. Otherwise, schools will continue to produce people who are both scared of hearing the truth and don't know how to seek the truth. As long as a school favors social justice over the pursuit of truth, it is unlikely that it will be able to increase the scale and broaden the scope of teaching students how to think.