Free Speech, Viewpoint Diversity, and Higher Education or Bigots and Snowflakes: Living in a World Where Everyone Else Is Wrong

COURSE DESCRIPTION

In this course, we will address questions surrounding viewpoint diversity. There are two foundational premises for the course. The first is that there is a lack of diversity along this dimension, particularly within the domain of higher education; recent survey data confirm this trend (goo.gl/ddnGEG). The second assertion is that this lack of diversity damages the mission of higher education (we will talk more about this in the first class). Inherent in the definition of viewpoint diversity is the principle that there is a spectrum of perspectives ranging, politically speaking, from staunchly conservative on one end to radically progressive on the other – and that the voicing of perspectives falling along that spectrum should be without social penalty. *Because the tilt in our current context on campus leans left and the material in the course will often refer to the absence and dismissal of opinions that deviate from an orthodoxy, omitted viewpoints often — though not without exception — coincide with non-left views or leftist views that simply ask uncomfortable questions.

Using our two assertions as a starting point, we examine issues that students may consider relevant for their academic studies in the social sciences and on campus more broadly. The overarching goal of the course is to introduce students to concepts that will teach them the importance of examining multiple perspectives dispassionately and to think critically in all aspects of their education. Invariably, it is the case that, to cover this material, we will delve into topics and listen to speakers that some will find distasteful or even abhorrent, particularly — although not exclusively — in the fourth section (described below). This course will force students to push past any initial distaste (if they are so inclined) to consider ideas that some view as not fit for public (or private) discourse and decide for themselves whether that is a valid or effective strategy. Our course material will consist of readings in the form of books and articles but will also include several video recordings and a few podcasts.

The first step in this course is for each student to go through the OpenMind program that is available through Heterodox Academy. It is a “free, interactive, psychology-based platform designed to foster intellectual humility, empathy, and mutual understanding across a variety of differences. OpenMind equips people with the essential cognitive skills and shared language to overcome their differences and work together to solve their collective problems.” It is available at https://openmindplatform.org and all students (and the instructor) are required to complete it.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

I expect students to attend every class and to actively participate in class conversations. I expect all readings to be completed prior to the corresponding class meeting and all work to be completed on time. I also insist upon acceptance of the following:

Commitment to Viewpoint Diversity, Mutual Understanding, and Constructive Disagreement. In order to create a classroom environment that supports respectful, critical inquiry through the free exchange of ideas, the following principles will guide our work: • Treat every member of the class with respect, even if you disagree with their opinion; • Bring light, not heat; • Reasonable minds can differ on any number of perspectives, opinions, and conclusions; • Because constructive disagreement sharpens thinking, deepens understanding, and reveals novel insights, it is not just encouraged, it is expected; • All viewpoints are welcome; • No ideas are immune from scrutiny and debate; • You will not be graded on your opinions.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

Upon successful completion of the course requirements, you will: • Have a clear understanding of viewpoint diversity and its importance • Be able to compare and contrast viewpoint diversity and free speech • Think critically about the role of viewpoint diversity (or its absence) in sociology and in the campus setting more broadly

BROAD THEMES

Substantively, the course is divided into four sections, titled “Foundations”, “Lay of the Land”, “Sociology”, and “Implications and Case Studies”. In the first section, we lay the foundations for an understanding of this topic – to do this, we will read widely on topics that introduce students to central concepts surrounding the following: (a) The link between politics and academia (b) The psychology behind people’s political convictions (c) A specific look at a criticism levied against post-modernism (particularly relevant given its prevalence in sociology) In the second section, we will take a closer look at the current state of the world with respect to the topic at hand. We will focus our reading on topics relating to viewpoint diversity in academia in particular, examining various perspectives on the ways in which free speech is being challenged particularly on college campuses. In the third section, we will specifically look at claims surrounding the lack of viewpoint diversity in sociology. Last, in the fourth section, we will spend considerable time hearing from speakers themselves who have tackled these issues. *Our first class (or two) will address the questions of what is ideological diversity and why should anyone care?

COURSE LAYOUT

I. Foundations (Weeks 1-4) Readings • All In One, an illustrated version of Chapter 2 of John Stuart Mill’s 1859 book On Liberty • The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt (Random House) • Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Stephen Hicks (Scholargy) o Conversation with on this book (http://www.stephenhicks.org/2017/08/19/jordan-peterson-and- stephen-hicks-discuss-postmodernism/) • The Still Divided Academy, April Kelly-Woessner, Matthew Woessner, and Stanley Rothman (Rowman and Littlefield)

II. Lay of the Land (Weeks 5-8) Readings • What’s Happened to the University, Frank Furedi (Routledge) • Becoming Right: How Campuses Shape Young Conservatives, Amy Binder and Kate Wood ( Press) • Free Speech on Campus, Sigal Ben-Porath (University of Pennsylvania Press) • We Are All on Campus Now, Andrew Sullivan (*article in New York Magazine) • “Republican is Not a Synonym for Racist”, Peter Beinart (*article in the Atlantic) • “The Racism Treadmill”, (*article in Quilette) • “Systemic Racism or Isolated Abuses? Americans Disagree”, David Graham (*article in the Atlantic)

III. Sociology (Weeks 9-11) Readings • The Sacred Project of American Sociology, Christian Smith (Oxford University Press) • “How Ideology Has Hindered Sociology”, CC Martin (*journal article in the American Sociologist) • Heterodox Academy interview with Arthur Sakamoto (Department of Sociology at Texas A&M, https://heterodoxacademy.org/arthur-sakamoto-on-paradigms- in-sociology-half-hour-of-heterodoxy-14/)

IV. Implications and Case Studies (Weeks 12-15) Readings • Uncensored: My Life and Uncomfortable Conversations, Zachary Wood (Penguin Books) o Zachary Wood Ted Talk • The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt (Penguin Press) Audio and Video presentations Ezra Klein vs. • Sam Harris conversation with Charles Murray (https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/) • Vox Article responding to podcast (https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden- knowledge-podcast-bell-curve) • Sam Harris conversation with Ezra Klein (https://samharris.org/podcasts/123- identity-honesty/)

Amy Wax • with Amy Wax on 9/11/17 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb9Ey-SsNsg) • Glenn Loury with Amy Wax on 3/21/18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWNzYuOuef0)

Erica and Nicholas Christakis • Sam Harris with Nicholas Christakis (https://samharris.org/podcasts/facing-the- crowd/) • The Perils of Writing a Provocative Email at Yale (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a- provocative-email-at-yale/484418/) • My Halloween Email Led to a Campus Firestorm – and a Troubling Lesson about Self-Censorship

Bret Weinstein • Sam Harris with Bret Weinstein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20ku1H4VzfQ) • Glenn Loury with Bret Weinstein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jWby5apSU

GRADING

Grading Requirements (out of a possible 350 points). I will grade on a +/- system. Students with 315 points or higher at the end of the semester can be assured of at least an A- (obviously more for those closer to 350).

• Weekly response posts (15x10 points = 150 points) • Class participation (100 points) o I will grade students’ participation across the whole semester. The grade represents my overall assessment of their participation in the class. If you are actively participating every day, can get a perfect score. — the full 100 points While active participation is easiest to measure by those students who speak in class and contribute to discussions, I will also consider those who are clearly following the conversation and being thoughtful about it. If you don’t regularly participate in class, your score drops. Those who never participate in class but have perfect attendance will end up with a score around 60 or 70 points. • Two well-developed response papers addressing questions (a) surrounding controversial issues (b) expanding the discussion on ideological diversity (c) a comparison of the readings (50 points each) o Response papers should be 4-5 pages in length, be double-spaced in 12 pt. font with 1-inch margins. o Papers will be graded on writing style, spelling, grammar, clarity, and on evidence that you’ve done the readings (or watched/listened to relevant material), thought about what you’ve learned, and distilled it (as opposed to simply regurgitating what was said).