Scholastic Gag Orders: NDAs, Mandatory Arbitration, and the Legal Threat to Academics

By Stephen Baskerville

January 2021

Introduction Both mechanisms enable institutions to conceal unethical conduct that would bring As radical activists serve as self-appointed public condemnation upon them. Both censors in our cultural institutions, attention conservatives and liberals consider their has focused on the militants’ use unethical because they protect quasi-Bolshevik tactics. But much less administrators from legal liability and attention has focused on the absence of criticism while leaving scholars in legal resistance: the silence of able-minded jeopardy and possibly even at risk of scholars, whose talents and learning could criminal punishments.1 ​ fight intimidation, and the failure of nerve by institutional leaders who could gain Because secrecy is the overriding overwhelming public support. imperative, information is difficult to obtain. These mechanisms exist to conceal, and Colleges and universities now respond not the mechanisms are themselves concealed by defiantly defending their principles, but and disguised. We cannot know therefore by devising new and secretive methods to how many and which institutions use them. rid themselves of the faculty who resist Nevertheless, recent scandals involving intimidation—without the world knowing. Evangelical institutions show that they seem to be especially popular at religiously Two methods provide a veil of legally affiliated colleges, though nothing suggests ​ ​ enforced secrecy that shields institutions that they aren’t used by public universities from negative publicity, professional censure, and even oversight: non-disclosure/disparagement agreements 1 Jeremiah Poff, “Conservative Professor Says ​ and mandatory arbitration. Baptist Seminary Used COVID as an Excuse to Get Rid of Him,” The College Fix, 26 May 2020. ​ American Association of University Professors, “Say No to NDAs and Forced Arbitration in ​ Higher Education,” 7 September 2018. ​

1 1 2 as well. ​ Apparently, “higher education ​ ​ Scholars must understand what institutions that pursue unique missions can is taking place. They need to also be susceptible to unique governance defend their profession and pitfalls.”3 ​ sound the alarm so the public This battle involves more than academic understands what is at stake. freedom. It concerns the power to take control of entire universities and leverage The process goes something like this: the legal system to eliminate whoever is in Universities can terminate professors (with the way. Scholars must understand what is ​ or without tenure) without warning, instantly taking place. They need to defend their cutting them off from their livelihood and profession and sound the alarm so the the grievance procedures and oversight public understands what is at stake. Shared ​ bodies of the university. If the professor governance, the voices of faculty and renounces their legal claims, waiving faculty assemblies, and effective oversight statutory and constitutional rights, and by governing boards are also endangered. promises silence, then the university may Even the constitutional integrity of the temporarily restore salary as “hush judiciary itself is potentially undermined. 4 money.” ​ This insulates administrators from ​ accountability, for both the termination itself and any other ethical or political Non-Disclosure/Disparagement issues leading to the dismissal. It inverts ​ ​ Agreements the law itself into an instrument of extortion.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may The professor becomes legally punishable ​ serve legitimate business purposes. for disclosing the institution’s contractual Non-disparagement agreements (not ​ ​ ​ ​ breach. Colleagues, students, prospective always the same thing) are inherently students, and faculty are all kept in the dark unethical, at least in academia, because about it happening. Even oversight bodies ipso facto they violate academic freedom ​ charged with ensuring the institution’s and conceal other ethical violations. integrity—faculty senates, accreditors, and the institution’s own governing boards—can be kept unaware of their use.5 ​ 2 The use of NDAs at public universities are rarely publicized, making them hard to track. The most effective recourse to politically Purdue University Global attracted negative publicity in 2018 for a broadly written motivated dismissals—going to the press to nondisclosure agreement that it required faculty draw public attention—is precisely what the members to sign. Goldie Blumenstyk, “Do ​ Corporate-Style NDAs Have a Place in Higher NDA forbids. Ed?,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 ​ ​ ​ September 2018. 4 Poff, “Conservative Professor Says…” 3 Christian Barnard, “Liberty University: A 5 Lawrence Fuqua, “SBTS Trustee Sees Serious ​ ​ Cautionary Tale,” James G. Martin Center for Problems at Al Mohler’s Seminary,” Capstone ​ ​ Academic Renewal, 25 October 2019. Report, 29 November 2020.

2 2 Like any restriction on freedom of creating “a culture of fear where people are 6 expression, the scope of an NDA is unclear unable to speak out.” ​ Buried in Politico’s ​ ​ ​ and broad enough to scare professors prurient accounts is the revelation that away from even publishing academic ​ ​ Liberty uses “non-disclosure agreements articles on the topic. A professional article that stop current and former staff and ​ on NDAs written by a professor who signed board members from discussing sensitive ​ an NDA could potentially open them up to matters” (emphasis added).7 ​ legal action, as could publicly defending their own integrity and reputation. Multiple dismissals of conservative professors at two important Baptist The only possible purpose for university theological seminaries, allegedly for their administrators to demand a professor sign dissent on the institution promoting leftist an NDA in an academic setting is to hide theories of sexuality, race, and “social suspicious conduct by administrators, justice,” were likewise accompanied by ​ ​ 8 especially surrounding a dismissal. Thus, NDAs. ​ A conservative professor fired from ​ NDAs invariably prohibit divulging their own a prominent theological seminary for similar existence. One actual non-disparagement reasons was given a severance package agreement, used by Patrick Henry College combined with an NDA, though he cannot (a non-denominational Christian institution), discuss the case, which is precisely the reads: purpose. Another refused to sign but is reluctant to talk because his case is ● Dr. [X] agrees that he will not covered by mandatory arbitration disclose the terms of this agreement (discussed below). at any time to anyone. ● Dr. [X] agrees that he will not at any “I am appalled by Evangelical Christian use time disparage [the College], its of Non-Disclosure Agreements to prevent affiliates or related organizations, directors, officers, employees, or 6 students in any way. Barnard, “Liberty University...” 7 Brandon Ambrosino, “‘Someone’s Gotta Tell ​ ● Dr. [X] that he will not initiate the Freakin’ Truth’: Jerry Falwell’s Aides Break Their Silence,” Politico, 9 September 2019. communication in any fashion at any ​ Maggie Severns et al., “‘They All Got Careless’: ​ time with anyone directly or How Falwell Kept His Grip on Liberty Amid indirectly associated with any Sexual ‘Games,’ Self-Dealing,” Politico, 1 ​ ​ ​ accrediting agency. November 2020. 8 Robert Oscar Lopez, “COVID-19 Completes ​ Liberal Takeover of Southern Baptist Convention,” American Thinker, 23 April 2020. As noted, such devices seem to have ​ ​ ​ special appeal for Evangelical institutions. Lopez introduced a resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention condemning NDAs as Even before President Jerry Falwell Jr.’s unethical, shortly before himself being fired from recent disgrace, Liberty University was Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, allegedly for his stance on homosexual politics. criticized for using NDAs to silence Robert Oscar Lopez, “Liberty’s Future is ​ dissenting faculty and even trustees and Predictable, Based on the 2018 Paige Patterson Case,” 23 April 2019. ​ 3 3 further discussion of concerns,” Robert Second, business executives who do not Gagnon of Houston Baptist University understand academic ethics often run wrote. “I expect this of left-wing ‘liberal’ conservative institutions and assume NDAs denominational structures, not Evangelical can serve legitimate purposes, as they do institutions.” He continued: in the business world. One college president, also a corporate executive, told It gives the appearance of being the author that “Separation hush money. A professor who has agreements…are common in the served faithfully for…years should employment world, both for businesses and not be forced to muzzle himself and non-profits,” after firing a professor who violate conscience as a condition for could have told him why it is not equivalent. receiving even a couple of months of salary.9 These institutions also mostly lack tenure ​ because they want the (perfectly legitimate) Tom Rush, a trustee at Southern Baptist option of dismissing faculty who deviate Theological Seminary, went on record from the institution’s religious principles. recently saying that “this contract was But this habit can serve the il-legitimate ​ ​ unethical” and that “it was hush money to purpose of punishing healthy dissent and keep them [fired professors] quiet.” Rush constructive criticism and protecting pointed out that “They allegedly were being administrators’ arbitrary power (including terminated for financial reasons, but if administrations that themselves deviate that’s the case, why silence them?”10 from the religious principles). Because ​ institutions must still profess to respect Why this proclivity among Evangelical academic freedom on non-doctrinal colleges? matters and fear criticism, such dismissals must be hidden. First, they loathe controversy and avoid 11 engaging in public debate. ​ “The church ​ has a bad habit of keeping things secret. Mandatory Arbitration They want to keep it in house, take care of it in house,” a former dean at Liberty said. Yet refusing to sign an NDA is no panacea. “And Liberty’s the same way.”12 ​ Faculty contracts now contain mandatory 9 “Top Baptist Professor: Al Mohler’s Strong-Arm ​ arbitration (MA) clauses (often disguised), Tactics Are ‘Sub-Christian,’” Capstone Report, ​ 26 May 2020. requiring that “employment disputes” be 10 Lawrence Fuqua, “Trustee Reveals Disturbing ​ adjudicated in secrecy by private Look Inside of Albert Mohler’s SBTS,” Capstone 13 ​ arbitrators. ​ Here, too, professors are Report, 28 November 2020. The quotations are ​ the article’s paraphrases of Rush’s more instantly cut off from their salaries, the extended comments, which can be verified from the video starting at 14:10. 11 Stephen Baskerville, “The Crisis of the 13 Jason P. Baily, “Mandatory Arbitration in ​ ​ Christian Colleges,” Crisis, 17 August 2017. Higher Ed Employment Contracts,” Browne ​ ​ ​ ​ 12 Severns et al., “‘They All Got Careless’…” House Law Group, 11 July 2018.

4 4 16 courts, grievance procedures, oversight transactions of ordinary people.” ​ (Your ​ bodies, and, most importantly, collegial and inbox probably contains a dozen notices public opinion. They can object only in a changing your “terms of service” to secret proceeding run by lawyers, not arbitration with everyone from banks to academic colleagues, who can suppress retailers). ethical questions because proceedings are closed and without record, and public Arbitration discards accepted legal norms disclosure is punished. and procedures, including due process protections. Arbitrators (enjoying legal As with NDAs, we cannot know how many immunity) have no specified limits on what faculty members get purged because awards or punishments they can inflict, secrecy is the whole point. including unlimited punitive damages and lawyers’ fees. Nothing requires that they Mandatory arbitration, too, may serve ​ ​ follow the law, and yet their secretive legitimate purposes among business firms. decisions are enforced by civil (and even But even in non-academic contexts, MA criminal) courts with almost no opportunity has been harshly criticized for depriving for challenge or appeal. One firm’s rules individuals of statutory and constitutional (used by educational institutions) include rights.14 these departures from open justice: ​

Standard MA requires parties to forego ● Proceedings are secret, with redress in the courts and instead submit participants bound to silence; no disputes to secret binding arbitration. record or transcript is kept or Ethical criticisms arose when businesses permitted; and no access by public, began imposing the practice on individual press, or family. employees and consumers (which was ● No guarantees for contractual, originally prohibited). Institutional clients statutory, or constitutional rights. allegedly enjoy superior leverage over ● Rules of evidence are explicitly isolated individuals, dictate the arbitration discarded, with no requirement to clauses (often supplied by the arbitration record evidence or explain firms), and collude with arbitrators.15 decisions. ​ MA is now an “epidemic.” This privatized ● Proceedings cannot be stopped, judiciary “has largely displaced the civil and one cannot withdraw. justice system for most of the major ● Decisions, damages, and punishments in absentia, without ​ ​ parties present to defend

14 Katherine V.W. Stone and Alexander J.S. themselves. Colvin, “The Arbitration Epidemic: Mandatory ● No limits on arbitrators’ rulings, their Arbitration Deprives Workers and Consumers of scope or relevance to merits, issues, their Rights,” Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #414, 7 December 2015. or facts. 15 Arguments are summarized in Stone and Colvin, “Arbitration Epidemic.” 16 Stone and Colvin, “Arbitration Epidemic,” 16.

5 5 ● Damages and fees can be imposed Academic freedom and other without finding legal culpability. ethical principles become ● Decisions are without appeal, legally binding, and enforced by courts subsumed into an “employment before which parties cannot present dispute” which excludes one’s their case. academic colleagues from any ● Unlimited fees can be imposed on role. parties who can be prevented from presenting their side of a case, 19 fairness and impartiality. ​ Incentives including defending themselves, ​ until fees are paid. governing business, though, are mostly ● No separation of powers or checks irrelevant in higher education. and balances in arbitrators’ selection or powers.17 ​ Secrecy and Faculty Rights Arbitrators can even issue restraining orders that carry criminal penalties. This Higher education brings even more serious constitutionally questionable tool allows a dynamics into play because of MA’s personalized criminal code to be legislated greatest asset to institutions: secrecy.20 ​ around a legally innocent individual, Unorthodox professors can be airbrushed imposing criminal punishments for doing out of an institution, gagged, and placed what no statute prohibits and what anyone under possible legal liability for objecting else may do. Punishments include publicly. Academic freedom and other ​ mandatory incarceration without trial, even ​ ​ ethical principles become subsumed into when the infringement is inadvertent or an “employment dispute” which excludes unavoidable—which it may well be, since it one’s academic colleagues from any role. only prohibits otherwise legal acts.18 ​ Despite enormous potential for injustice, 19 Stone and Colvin, “Arbitration Epidemic.” 20 Despite widespread criticism in employment arbitration is defended in business settings contracts generally, the implications for because arbitrators seek a reputation for academic freedom are unexplored. Students subject to similar provisions discover comparable implications: “Because the enrollment contracts typically include gag 17 Information about arbitration comes from clauses that prevent students from sharing Stone and Colvin, “Arbitration Epidemic,” and information about their complaint and the results similar articles cited below, from the Guidelines of the arbitration with outside parties, their for Christian Conciliation (January 2019) of the complaints are effectively silenced. They are Institute for Christian Conciliation (used by heard only through a secretive process that educational institutions as discussed here), and prevents information from becoming public ​ ​ from discussions with attorneys, who through the court system—ultimately shielding unanimously confirm that the harshest bad actors from public accountability.” Anthony interpretations of arbitration regulations are all Walsh, “States Should Act to Prohibit Mandatory ​ possibilities under arbitration law as currently Arbitration in College Enrollment Contracts,” The ​ written and practiced. Century Foundation, 26 May 2020. Of course, 18 Stephen Baskerville, Taken Into Custody student complaints raise wholly different issues ​ (Nashville: Cumberland House, 2007), 177-186. from academic freedom for faculty.

6 6 Larger ethical contexts then become institution and twist the knife on any irrelevant, and students, donors, trustees, recalcitrant faculty who questions its senates, accreditors, and the public will reputation for integrity. Criticizing the never know. college’s ethics, including the arbitration procedure itself, undermines both the Instead, lawyers “settle” everything in college’s credibility and the arbitration secret arbitration. The dispute will be firm’s entire selling point. reduced to material issues, with ethical principles ignored. Regardless of material Whether or not the arbitrators would act as awards, the institution wins the important ruthlessly as they can, the open-ended battle before the procedure ever begins possibilities of legal action provide a clear because the secrecy keeps its reputation threat that will intimidate anyone. When intact, regardless of how unethical its your aim is to shut someone’s mouth, the actions. MA cannot address ethical threat is everything. “While [Baptist violations because it is itself the principal seminary President Al] Mohler says he method of enabling and concealing those wouldn’t take the former professors who violations in the first place. signed such an agreement to court, he says that threatening them works.” This refers to Even if professors decline to claim an NDA, but the point is the same.21 ​ damages for unjust firings, they cannot be certain that any public criticism they make Even vindicating one’s reputation by will not trigger an arbitration procedure divulging larger ethical or political issues against them by the institution. In absentia, behind one’s dismissal (e.g. to a ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ one could potentially be forced to pay prospective employer) could bring exorbitant damages and massive legal fees, retribution. (Few will believe the favorite since no rules limit the amount. pretext of “budget cuts”). Suspicion of having signed an NDA (and taken “hush Why would arbitrators act so unjustly? money”) may also compromise one’s professional integrity, as some academics In education, material settlements are trivial or administrators may assume signing an compared to the procedure itself. The NDA is complicity in wrongdoing.22 ​ ​ ​ arbitration firm is selling the power to A larger danger arises here: Faculty ​ silence and intimidate faculty. It offers governance could disappear altogether, as universities a no-lose proposition: You may have to pay some damages, but your reputation is guaranteed to remain intact so 21 Fuqua, “Trustee Reveals Disturbing Look…” 22 long as the professor can be kept quiet. At least one professor lauds his colleagues’ refusal to sign. “Irrespective of whether Professors [Russell] Fuller and [Jim] Orrick are Given the lack of restraints on damages right or wrong in their accusations [against Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]…they described above, the firm has both the come across by their actions in not signing the means and the incentive to collude with the NDA as having more courage and integrity.” ​ ​ “Top Baptist Professor...”

7 7 higher ed bureaucrats gain more power and Faculty governance could control by using NDAs and MA. disappear altogether, as higher Administrations can suppress any dissent or criticism about their leadership (or any ed bureaucrats gain more power topic) and render grievance procedures and control by using NDAs and useless. All looks serene because no MA. controversy can surface in the first place. Faculty are reduced to hired hands. Yet those objections may distract from a larger issue, a sleight-of-hand that disguises standard MA with an aura of The Peculiar World of Religious religious sanctimony. For it is not clear that ​ ​ Arbitration religious arbitration contains anything religious at all. At least with the Christian Eliminating divergent views is advanced by version (used by educational institutions), it the most controversial version of MA: simply replicates standard mandatory religious arbitration (RA). This, too, has arbitration sprinkled with Bible verses. been criticized in other areas for entangling 23 church and state, ​ violating religious ​ RA invokes religious faith for commercial 24 freedom, ​ and even establishing Sharia gain. Behind the smiles, fee-charging and ​ 25 law. ​ With secrecy effectively immunizing profit-making firms develop a market for ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ them from public criticism, Christian “Christian” arbitration. This gives the firm organizations appear to be erecting a (one dominates the market) a further framework to penalize “Christophobia,” incentive to collude with employers, such copying prohibitions on “Islamophobia” and as colleges, who support their monopoly by ​ ​ “homophobia.”26 embedding arbitration clauses into ​ employment contracts. (Some college contracts replicate the principal firm’s 23 Brian Hutler, “Religious Arbitration and the suggested language verbatim). Without Establishment Clause,” Ohio State Journal on ​ Dispute Resolution, vol. 33, no. 3 (2018), 338, competitors, incentives to impartiality cited ​ 340. Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld and Frank Costa, by MA’s defenders do not really apply to “The Reverse-Entanglement Principle: Why Religious Arbitration of Federal Rights Is the Christian version. Unconstitutional,” Yale Law Journal, vol. 128, ​ ​ no. 7 (2019), 2120, 2087, 2099, 2105. The pitfalls are further obfuscated by the 24 Nicholas Walter, “Religious Arbitration in the United States and Canada,” Santa Clara Law religious-therapeutic veneer. Labeled as ​ Review, vol. 52, no. 2 (2012), 504, 566. ​ “Christian Conciliation,” it claims to 25 Courts apparently have already upheld arbitration decisions based on Sharia law. “conciliate” disagreements to avoid Chua-Rubenfeld and Costa, litigating them, promising a less “Reverse-Entanglement Principle,” 2095. Walter, “adversarial” alternative that redeems “Religious Arbitration,” 569. 26 Christian arbitrators equate criticism of their antagonists spiritually (“change their clients with criticism of Christianity itself, rationalizing the secrecy “to prevent a public criticize and mock Christianity.” Guidelines for quarrel that would give others an opportunity to Christian Conciliation, 12.

8 8 attitudes and behavior”). The therapeutic The Model: Christian Colleges as camouflage further moves the process ​ ​ Political-Business Empires away from justice. Organizations jumping onto the mandatory arbitration bandwagon It is ironic that Christian colleges are not for self-interested reasons can advertise it only joining their secular counterparts in as spiritual uplift for those they plan to purging faculty but using methods that injure. weaponize their religion in such a mercenary fashion. One might wonder what Replacing justice with moral improvement kind of ethics and theology these may leave their potential future adversaries institutions teach. feeling good, but they have also lost any recourse against unjust and arbitrary This use of MA becomes comprehensible judgements. when one understands the political dynamic driving some Evangelical Whether operated by the American institutions. Though nothing so sinister as ​ ​ Arbitration Association or relabeled by the the “theocracy” suspected by their 28 Institute for Christian Conciliation (ICC, a detractors, ​ it is still enough to vitiate ​ firm with clients in higher education), the authentic institutions of higher learning. reality is the same. ICC’s Guidelines for ​ 27 Christian Conciliation ​ make very clear that ​ Often founded by conservative political 29 what they are practicing is simply standard moguls ​ as components of their ​ MA. In fact, its Guidelines actually prevent ​ ​ ​ political-business empires, the newer, people from using moral pressure alone alternative Evangelical institutions can ​ ​ and can punish them for it—moral pressure exhibit “a governance model that place[s] would defeat the secrecy and make the too much power in the hands of one arbitrators superfluous. 30 person.” ​ Rarely do they offer more than ​ their secular counterparts when it comes to What religious arbitration offers is another critically examining ideas and society, and way for Christian colleges to bypass public they are determined to keep faculty on a (and legal) scrutiny. It enables colleges to 31 tight rein. ​ The empire expands primarily avoid the legal liability, public scrutiny, and ​ by placing students in influential positions impartiality that comes with a non-secretive of political power. process. The business product being sold ​ ​ here is not reconciling people who disagree, but eliminating them. 28 Hanna Rosin, God’s Harvard: A Christian ​ College on a Mission to Save America (New ​ York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007). 29 Emma Green, “Liberty University Students ​ Want to Be Christians–Not Republicans,” The ​ ​ 27 This is the version most often cited in law Atlantic, 26 October 2016. ​ review articles and litigated in cases. See 30 Barnard, “Liberty University.” Chua-Rubenfeld and Cost, 31 Stephen Baskerville, “Jerry Falwell, Jr. and the ​ “Reverse-Entanglement Principle,” 2094-2098, Tragedy of Christian Higher Education,” New ​ ​ 2101-2102. English Review, September 2020. ​ 9 9 Liberty University’s mission, for example, integrity of an institution of higher aims to “train champions for Christ,” and education. Jerry Falwell proclaimed, “We’re turning out moral revolutionaries.” Despite the Religious or secular, contractual clauses ostensible liberal arts ethos, procuring jobs that gag professors present a unique threat becomes an end in itself, eclipsing “critical to academic freedom in higher education. thinking,” and education itself becomes NDAs and MA deprive the institution of 32 secondary. ​ The pipeline of jobs and faculty voices that can help ensure the ​ influence must be protected at all costs. centrality of academics and the pursuit of truth. Nothing endangers that influence so much as controversy, and so faculty are treated The most debilitating feature of this legal as hired hands who are expected to teach climate is the admission of intellectual and otherwise keep quiet. Criticizing the incapacity by institutions of learning. When wrong people or deviating from boilerplate self-interest is at stake, high-minded conservatism could block the pipeline. pretenses about the exchange of ideas give ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ way to high-level administrators quietly Colleges become another vehicle of ​ ​ stabbing their colleagues in the back and political influence, with students and faculty ​ ​ stopping the mouths of critics with legal as pawns in the game—not prophets or threats. These actions constitute an open intellectuals who critically assess ideas. admission that colleges have become havens for intellectually incapable people whose professional competence, by their Conclusion own judgement, is insufficient when their own interest is at stake.33 ​ Whether motivated by a desire for political influence or the self-perpetuating desire to If institutions continue to use protect their reputation and avoid non-disparagement agreements, accountability, NDAs and MA threaten the mandatory arbitration, and other legal mechanisms to deal with criticism and 32 These institutions usually start life with a contradiction. Their initial claim to superiority involves returning to the traditional liberal-arts 33 John Ellis writes that “Large numbers of curriculum deserted by mainstream academia. people holding professorial titles have neither Because they are essentially political operations, any real interest in academic work, nor aptitude however, they soon become dominated by for it” and attributes the “breakdown of higher applied courses that train their cadres in education” to “a concentration of people who techniques of political activism and power, such don’t really belong in academia but are now as journalism, pre-law, business, law numerous enough there to control it, to abuse it enforcement, and security studies. Taught by for their own selfish purposes, and effectively to practitioners rather than scholars, these subjects destroy it.” Ellis’ account points to a are perceived by students as advantageous for preponderance of left-wing ideologues but their careers and quickly drive out the liberal allows that it is not necessarily limited to arts, while functionaries drive out the scholars. professors alone nor to leftists among them. The ​ One college offers the doublespeak of “Applied Breakdown of Higher Education (New York: ​ Liberal Arts.” Encounter, 2020), 182.

10 10 fights over academic freedom, the public About the Author should be more skeptical of the classroom Stephen Baskerville, PhD, has worked for instruction they offer and the scholarship 30+ years in universities in the United produced in their Ivory towers. States and Europe. His publications include The New Politics of Sex: Civil Liberties and the Growth of Governmental Power (2017), ​ and Not Peace But a Sword: The Political ​ Theology of the English Revolution (1993, ​ expanded 2018), plus peer-reviewed articles on politics, law, history, religion, and higher education. In July 2019, he was dismissed as Professor of Government from Patrick Henry College.

About the Martin Center The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal is a private nonprofit institute dedicated to improving higher education policy. Our mission is to renew and fulfill the promise of higher education in North Carolina and across the country.

We advocate responsible governance, viewpoint diversity, academic quality, cost-effective education solutions, and innovative market-based reform. We do that by studying and reporting on critical issues in higher education and recommending policies that can create change—especially at the state and local level.

353 E. Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 919.828.1400 jamesgmartin.center

11 11