Category: universities behaving badly

The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: “A Glorious Enterprise” comes to a sad end

October 1, 2026 • 8:30 am

by Greg Mayer

The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, the oldest natural history museum in the United States, is closing. Drexel University, with which the Academy became affiliated in 2011, announced on September 1 that the museum, located at 19th and the Parkway in Philadelphia, would close at the end of the month. The closing of the museum is a tragedy.

Two of the Academy’s acclaimed ornithologists, Rodolphe Meyer de Schaunsee and James Bond, in 1983.

The Academy was founded in 1812, and, in 1828, opened the museum at its first location, 12th and Sansom Streets; it opened at its current site in 1876. The Academy was the oldest surviving institution of its kind in America. As such, it was extremely influential in the development of American science, at a time when the scientific community, such as it was, was small and concentrated on the East Coast. Many 19th century scientists and naturalists were associated with the Academy in various capacities: Titian Peale, William Bartram, Alexander Wilson, John James Audubon, Spencer Fullerton Baird, John Cassin, Joseph Leidy, and Edward Drinker Cope, to name just a few. Charles Darwin was elected a corresponding member in 1860. Later Academy scientists include the original James Bond, the influential ecologist Ruth Patrick, and the co-describer of Tiktaalik, Ted Daeschler. The Academy sponsored expeditions all around the world, to places such as West Africa, Greenland, Mongolia, South America, and the West Indies. The American Medical Association (AMS; 1847) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS; 1848) were both founded at the Academy.

The collections of the Academy are priceless. Because of its age, influence, and international connections, it has received, by gift, exchange, and purchase, parts of the collections of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the United States Exploring Expedition, Thomas Jefferson, Captain Cook, and John Gould (the British ornithologist who described Darwin’s Galapagos specimens). These collections of specimens, and the associated written records and library of the Academy, form the core of the Academy’s scientific (and history of science) enterprise. But, as James Smithson enunciated in his bequest that founded the Smithsonian Institution, such institutions are for the “increase and diffusion of knowledge ” (emphasis added).

The public facing side of the Academy– it’s museum, public programs, and educational outreach: the way it “diffuses” knowledge– are as integral to a great institution of natural history as are its scientists. Institutions vary in how much effort is devoted to the increase vs. the diffusion sides of their missions. Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology lean towards “increase”, having an at most modest public face; Atlanta’s Fernbank Museum of Natural History is almost all “diffusion”; while the American Museum of Natural History in New York, Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History excel at both. The Academy has always been among the latter– excelling at both, with an excellent public museum, as well as an active research program among its affiliated scientists.

I have several times visited the Academy to work in its collections and get information from its archives. My most recent visit was last summer, to the Bird division, where I was hosted by an active and welcoming community of senior scientists and graduate students. I regret that I did not have time to go see the exhibits– I could never, at the time, have fathomed that it would be my last chance to see them. I contemplated trying to get to Philadelphia during this final month, but the logistics and scheduling of such a trip during the first month of my semester were daunting. Had the closing been announced well ahead of time (say, the end of this year), rather than just one month ahead, I would have made it.

Drexel University promises in some vague way to preserve the “legacy” of the Academy, but past experience does not augur well. I am reminded of other university’s casual loss of their collections (Princeton’s, for example), while others had theirs saved only by an outside institution willing to take the specimens (Duke’s, for example). If the Academy’s building is closing, where will the collections go? (They are in the same building as the public exhibits.) And what will happen to the scientists, students, and other staff who are working there? The Academy has had its ups and downs over the years (as will any 200+ year old institution), and perhaps this is just a low spot from which public-spirited citizens, perhaps with the support of the city and the state, may be able to effect a rebound. But based on what I know now, I very much fear for my colleagues and the collections, not to mention the people of Philadelphia and the world who experienced the Academy’s “diffusion”.

Peck, R.M., and P.T. Stroud. 2012. A Glorious Enterprise: the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the Making of American Science. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. A wonderful, well-illustrated, history of the Academy, celebrating its first 200 years, and intended to look forward to continuing glory. Now, it practically induces tears.

Harvard tries to make up for accusations of antisemitism

February 21, 2024 • 9:30 am

You’ll remember that Claudine Gay, the ex-President of Harvard, was grilled, along with the Presidents of MIT and Penn, in a House hearing on antisemitism. And all three Presidents were correct in saying that, if they applied the First Amendment on their campuses, calling for the genocide of Jews would often be considered free speech, but in some situations it wouldn’t. (One example of impermissible speech would be shouting “Gas the Jews” in front of a crowd of Jews if it would lead to predictable “imminent lawless action.)

Nevertheless, the professors were damned by the largely Republican panel—mainly because they spoke the truth, but there were two problems. First, the campuses didn’t explicitly have a speech code that comported with the First Amendment (they’re all private schools, too, so they aren’t required to). Further, they applied what speech codes they had unevenly, punishing much less serious offenses. In other words they were guilty of speech hypocrisy.

After the House debacle, Penn President Liz Magill resigned, while Gay, desperate to make amends, issued two statements plus a video explanation and apology.  That might have saved her job, but in the end she was brought down by numerous and credible examples of plagiarism in her scholarly work. An interim President, Alan Garber, was appointed to replace Gay, and the search is on for a long-term replacement.

Now, six Jewish students at Harvard have filed a federal Title VI lawsuit against the school, alleging that it was a “bastion of anti-Jewish hatred.” In other words, the school had by its behavior created a climate of antisemitism. The suit will take a while before it works its way through the courts. but Harvard is clearly on notice that it has to do something about its speech hypocrisy. In a Boston Globe op-ed, Steve Pinker suggested five actions that Harvard could take to “save itself,” including adopting institutional neutrality and disempowering DEI.

Unfortunately, Harvard can’t seem to stop disseminating antisemitic tropes, and incidents like this one (click the NY Post linke below to read) will only contribute to finding Harvard culpable in the lawsuit.

An excerpt:

The Harvard Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine reposted the cartoon Monday after it was shared by two student groups, the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Africa and African American Resistance Organization, according to the student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson.

It shows a hand with a dollar sign inside a Star of David holding nooses around what appear to be Muhammad Ali and former Egyptian President Gamal Nasser — with “third world” printed around a black arm swinging a machete with the words “liberation movement” on it.

Note that faculty are participating here.

The groups said they shared the poster, which is originally from 1967, to show how “African people have a profound understanding of apartheid and occupation.”

Instead, it added to accusations that the Ivy League school fails to protect Jewish students from hate.

More:

“The cartoon is despicably, inarguably antisemitic,” Rabbi David Wolpe, a Harvard Divinity School scholar who resigned from the school’s antisemitism advisory committee in December, posted to X.

“Is there no limit?”

[Alexander] Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Divinity School student who is suing the university for discrimination, also shared outrage at the offensive poster being reshared.

“Harvard *faculty* just posted an explicitly antisemitic poster depicting a Jewish hand controlling the black mind,” he wrote.

“With professors like these, it’s easy to see why Jewish students don’t feel safe in class.”

So here’s the cartoon at issue, which undeniably uses antisemitic tropes. Look at the Jewish hand (with a $ sign inside the Star of David) being a puppeteer. The cartoon was ultimately withdrawn with apologies by the issuing groups, but it was too late.

 

Now if you ask me, this is free speech, although of course bigoted and hateful speech. Were this to happen at the University of Chicago, it’s likely that no official statement would have been issued. But, under the gun, Harvard’s interim President issued this statement yesterday; I got it as an alum. There was also a short Harvard Press release condemning the cartoon and its antisemitism.

Taking an official stand against this stuff would violate Chicago’s institutional neutrality mandated by the Kalven Report, but Harvard doesn’t adhere to that. Ergo, to save its reputation, the school could hardly have done other than issue such a long screed, though I think the short press release is sufficient.

Note two things about the statement. First, it looks as if Harvard’s going to sniff out the perps with an eye to punishing them. Punishment for free speech! Notice further that besides condemning antisemitism, Harvard also has to condemn bigotry against Muslims, Palestinians, and Arabs. This “both sideism” is somewhat offensive to me: if you’re going to condemn an incident of antisemitism, you don’t have to throw in stuff about the other “side” as well. After all, Harvard isn’t being sued for creating an “Islamophobic atmosphere”.  And I, for one, find it difficult to approach loud and aggressive pro-Palestinian demonstrators with “compassion and mutual respect”, so that part of the letter seems patronizing.  As for “discourse grounded in facts,” fuggedaboutit!

In my view, Harvard should adopt Pinker’s “Fivefold Way” immediately, or it will be issuing statements like the one above every time there’s an incident involving people’s politics and identities. And you can see that it’s still violating the First Amendment, threatening punishment for flyers like the one above.

The Harvard Crimson also has a story about the image and Harvard’s reaction, but it largely mirrors the Post‘s story.

Calls to ban free speech at Auckland University in New Zealand

December 22, 2023 • 10:00 am

Troubles continue at the University of Auckland as it’s being sued by a somewhat off-the-rails professor named Siouxsie (real name Susannah) Wiles.  Wiles apparently made some statements about Covid-19 as a public communicator of science, statements that the public didn’t like. The result was that she claimed to be inundated with hate mail and threats.  She sued the university for failure to protect her against such hate speech. This is from the November 5 New Zealand Herald:

Appearing in court this morning, Wiles said the University of Auckland’s HR staff told her to stop making public statements on Covid-19 if she wanted to reduce the threats being made against her.

The health and safety advice effectively “victim-blamed” her, suggesting she and her colleagues were responsible for the harassment they were getting, Wiles told a court today.

She gave evidence in her Employment Court case this morning, which is being closely watched because of its significance to academic freedom in New Zealand.

The case centres on Wiles’ accusation that the university leadership failed to protect her against the “tsunami of threats” she received for her public commentary on Covid-19.

. . .Almost immediately after she started speaking out, the threats began, initially about her appearance but becoming increasingly vitriolic and violent, the court heard.

Wiles made her first complaint to the university in April 2020, about three months after her first media comment on Covid.

Stewart said the university failed to act on this complaint and many more. Over the following months, she and her colleagues sent 60 emails about the harassment and threats against her and colleagues, and held seven meetings with human resources staff and managers.

The university did not carry out a threat assessment until June 2022, and that did not include a basic threat assessment, Stewart said. It also took no steps when a conspiracy theorist came onto campus and confronted staff, she said.

During this period, the university used Wiles to promote its success, citing her in annual reports and promotional material as evidence of its academic excellence and critical role during a pandemic.

Yet privately, university leaders were urging Wiles to pull back from her public commentary, the court heard.

“Outwardly, the University of Auckland has clearly enjoyed the prestige of employing such an academic,” Stewart said.

Now I’m not sure of the merits of her case (isn’t it the duty of the police to protect people against threats?), but Wiles doesn’t get a ton of sympathy from me because she was a huge critic of the Listener Letter (see it here), in which seven of her Auckland Uni colleagues argued that “claiming indigenous knowledge (or mātauranga Māori [MM]) “falls far short of what can be defined as science itself.” Since MM is a mixture of empirical observations, religion, morality, legend, and superstition, the authors of the Listener Letter were right: it shouldn’t be taught as science in science classes, though should be taught somewhere because MM is important for perpetuating indigenous culture. Wiles, however, helped organize a group letter calling the Listener Letter “scientific racism.”  That led to a pile-on on its seven authors that is arguably worse than the one Dr. Wiles experienced herself (two were investigated by the Royal Society of New Zealand, which also criticized their thesis and defended MM as science). And there were threats, “harm”, and everything else that Wiles gog. In other words, Wiles herself perpetuated exactly the kind of opprobrium she’s complaining about; the chickens came home to roost!

Here’s Wiles (left) from Wikipedia, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on the right:

Now, a group of Auckland academics has signed a letter arguing that the Wiles issues have mad their workspace is unsafe, and intimating that there should be curbs on free speech at Auckland Uni. Click the secreenshot below to read:

What are they worried about? From the article:

More than 100 academics at the University of Auckland have signed a letter to the leadership that says high-profile staff are not being protected by the university.

Some of the academics said they no longer felt comfortable speaking publicly or to media for fear of threats and harassment.

The open letter, signed by 129 academics, followed an Employment Court hearing in which high-profile microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles argued the university had failed to protect her from a “tsunami of threats”, which followed her commentary on the Covid-19 pandemic.

A ruling has yet to be made in that case. The university has argued its management provided extensive support to Wiles and it did not breach its obligations towards her.

Its lawyers also argued the university cannot control all threats — especially those made on social media — and it is doing its best to minimise and manage them.

More than 100 academics at the University of Auckland have signed a letter to the leadership that says high-profile staff are not being protected by the university.

Some of the academics said they no longer felt comfortable speaking publicly or to media for fear of threats and harassment.

The open letter, signed by 129 academics, followed an Employment Court hearing in which high-profile microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles argued the university had failed to protect her from a “tsunami of threats”, which followed her commentary on the Covid-19 pandemic.

A ruling has yet to be made in that case. The university has argued its management provided extensive support to Wiles and it did not breach its obligations towards her.

Its lawyers also argued the university cannot control all threats — especially those made on social media — and it is doing its best to minimise and manage them.

It’s arguable whether it’s the university’s job to prevent threats to its employees. Here at the University of Chicago, I’ve referred all threats I’ve gotten to the FBI or police, depending on their severity. I wouldn’t complain to the University because it can’t do anything unless the threats come from a University employee.

But here’s the part where the petition seems to segue into calls for censorship, particularly of speech that “harms” minorities:

The open letter to the University Council says in the absence of a court ruling, academics “remain exposed to psychological and physical harm while carrying out our work”.

“As racist, transphobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic hate has been rising globally, we are particularly concerned for marginalised groups including Māori, Pacific, transgender and non-binary colleagues.

“We are also concerned that recent politicised conversation around gun control, free speech, and hate speech legislation, as well as public questioning of equity-oriented initiatives in university education (such as MAPAS), is likely to embolden fringe elements.”

The article below from The Platform, an online, politically independent Kiwi radio station, points out that what’s happening at Auckland Uni are calls for the curbing of free speech on the grounds of “harm” and “hate speech.”.Remember, nobody has actually been harmed yet: they’ve been offended and perhaps threatened (which should be reported to the police). But speech should not be curtailed on those grounds.

A few excerpts (emphasis is mine):

Highly experienced textual analysts have seized on key words in the letter — including the phrase “fields of research politicised in the current environment” to decipher what the academics actually meant. The “current environment”, they surmised, may be code for a new government taking office.

“Fields of research” that have been “politicised” might be an oblique reference to the “indigenisation” of universities and the push to make them “Te Tiriti-centric”, which proceeded apace under the Ardern-Hipkins government. Part of that concern will no doubt be that the election of the Luxon-led administration may ultimately mean university management will not be quite so indulgent of “fields of research” that result from mātauranga Māori being inserted everywhere, including in science courses, and the preference in funding given to applications involving Te Ao Māori.

Other paragraphs in the letter make this analysis seem highly plausible:

“As racist, transphobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic hate has been rising globally, we are particularly concerned for marginalised groups including Māori, Pacific, transgender and non-binary colleagues.

“We are also concerned that recent politicised conversation around gun control, free speech, and hate-speech legislation, as well as public questioning of equity-oriented initiatives in University education (such as MAPAS), is likely to embolden fringe elements.”

The references to free speech and hate speech perhaps get to the nub of the academics’ concerns. As part of its coalition agreement with the Act Party, the National-led government will amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to oblige “tertiary education providers receiving taxpayer funding [to] commit to a free-speech policy”.  

Note that the new government insists that colleges and universities must have a free-speech policy. This is why I think the new National Party government is better in many ways than the Ardern Labour government. I was initially enthusiastic about Ardern, but her government became increasingly woke and began engaging in identity politics. National is more conservative, but not at all conservative in the way that U.S. Republicans are conservative. Their insistence on free speech, for example, is excellent.

More from the article above:

Overall, the letter appears to be a request for the university to actively shield from criticism those who advocate for “progressive” programmes that put equity considerations above equal opportunity and promote advancement via identity rather than merit. In short, it appears to be a barely veiled plea for the university to curtail free speech and maintain the status quo.

And about the hyprocrisy of the “unsafe” Auckland Uni academics:

It has not gone unnoticed that a significant number of the 119 academics who were moved last week to tell the public just how very unsafe they feel also signed what has become known as the “Wiles-Hendy letter”. Oddly, they didn’t seem to be so concerned in 2021 about their seven professorial colleagues feeling “unsafe”.

One of those who signed both the Wiles-Hendy letter and last week’s effort had also tweeted in 2020: “When the [university staffing] cuts come, can we please not hang onto the white male boomer profs ‘because they bring in the $$$’? That would further entrench the biased system…

“White men are over-represented in the system. They also gets lots of $$ because funding is distributed in a biased way. It would be racist to retain white men at or beyond retirement age because it would reinforce the racist system.”

Some might think it takes an awful lot of chutzpah — or cognitive dissonance — for the author of such a tweet to publicly claim they are fearful of criticism when they have been so willing to call for colleagues to lose their livelihood on account of their age, race and sex.

In other words, Auckland Uni has become quite woke under its Vice Chancellor Dawn Freshwater, who promised years ago that there would be a debate about the topic of the Listener Letter: are all “ways of knowing”, including indigenous ones, equally valid? As I wrote at the time, Freshwater said this:

I am calling for a return to a more respectful, open-minded, fact-based exchange of views on the relationship between mātauranga Māori and science, and I am committing the University to action on this.

In the first quarter of 2022 we will be holding a symposium in which the different viewpoints on this issue can be discussed and debated calmly, constructively and respectfully. I envisage a high-quality intellectual discourse with representation from all viewpoints: mātauranga Māori, science, the humanities, Pacific knowledge systems and others.

I recognise it is a challenging and confronting debate, but one I believe a robust democratic society like ours is well placed to have.

Well, Freshwater didn’t follow through with her commitment to free speech: it’s two years on now, and there is no sign of such a debate (two signers of the Listener letter have since died). Clearly Freshwater knew that she wasn’t going to allow an airing of the issue. If she wasn’t lying, then the debate is still relevant and should go on.

Now is the time, though, for Auckland Uni to adopt a free speech policy that doesn’t ban “hate speech”, which is often just speech that can produce discussion, like the debate that Freshwater promised but didn’t produce. Isn’t the validity of “ways of knowing” something that a University, especially in NZ, should discuss? If the Uni doesn’t adopt a free-speech policy on their own, then it looks as if the new government will force one on them. In the meantime, the hypocritical calls of “harm” ring through the corridors of Auckland University.

The University of California system issues an official critique of the Dobbs decision, chilling speech of those who disagree

July 7, 2022 • 9:15 am

I happen to be one of those who favored the Roe v. Wade decision; in fact, I’d go farther than the judges in that one by extending the term limits for abortion. Ergo, I think that Dobbs was a bad decision and that some way must be found around it. All American women who want an abortion should be able to get one without having to travel to other states.

This is my personal view, though I know many others disagree. Universities, in particular, which are supposed to serve as venues for debate, should not take official positions on such issues, as that chills or squelches the speech of faculty, staff, and students who disagree with those positions but fear reprisals if they disagree publicly.

This is why we have the Kalven Report at the University of Chicago, and, given my many posts on it, you should be familiar with it by now. Let me just quote a bit of that short report, which is one of our two pillars of free speech at the University of Chicago (the other is The Chicago Principles of Free Expression). I do recommend reading the short Kalven Report in its entirety, but here’s the most-quoted bit (emphasis is mine):

The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge. Its domain of inquiry and scrutiny includes all aspects and all values of society. A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices, and institutions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. In brief, a good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting.

The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.

The University of Chicago does not issue official statements about ideology, politics, or morality unless some aspect of society “threaten[s] the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.” But these “aspects” are only ones bearing on the “discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge” within the institution.

The Dobbs decision is not such an aspect.  Sure, you can stretch nearly every issue into one that “threatens the mission of the university”, but we have a high bar for that, and the University does not—or is not supposed to—issue statements about issues like war, apartheid, abortion, guns, Palestine vs. Israel, and so on. (There have been violations here, and some of us are working on those).

The University of California, on the other hand, takes the opposite position, going full tilt by issuing statements about nearly every sociopolitical issue. These can come from either the UC administration or departments of various campuses. All of them should be taken down.

On June 24, the President of the University of California system, Michael Drake, took it upon himself to criticize the Dobbs decision of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. His statement, as you see, is labeled as being a “UC statement” (University of California), not his personal opinion. It is thus the opinion of a huge and powerful educational institution, and a public institution.

Drake oversees the entire UC system; as his webpage notes:

Dr. Michael V. Drake is the 21st president of the University of California. He oversees UC’s world-renowned university system of 10 campuses, five medical centers, three nationally affiliated labs, more than 280,000 students and 230,000 faculty and staff.

Is he speaking for all of them in his statement? Click on the screenshot below:

The statement is short, and I reproduce it in its entirety:

UC Office of the President June 24, 2022
University of California President Michael V. Drake, M.D., today (June 24) issued the following statement on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:

For nearly 50 years, people in the United States have had the right to make private, informed choices about their health care and their futures. I am gravely concerned that today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision removes that right and will endanger lives across the country. This decision overturns decades of legal precedent and could pave the way for other fundamental rights to be removed.

The Court’s decision is antithetical to the University of California’s mission and values. We strongly support allowing individuals to access evidence-based health care services and to make decisions about their own care in consultation with their medical team. Despite this decision by the Court, we will continue to provide the full range of health care options possible in California, including reproductive health services, and to steadfastly advocate for the needs of our patients, students, staff, and the communities we serve. We will also continue to offer comprehensive education and training to the next generation of health care providers, and to conduct life-saving research to the fullest extent possible.

This is a sobering moment for many of us at the University of California and throughout the nation. Today, we stand with California leaders and health care advocates who are taking critical steps to protect Californians’ human rights and their access to affordable and convenient health care choices.

As you see, he says that Dobbs decision is “antithetical to the University of California’s mission and values”. But where in its mission and values does it mention that its values include “access to evidence-based health care services”? That is a policy, not the mission of the University of California. And that shows that any social event, law, or policy can be stretched to warrant damnation by the University of California.

But what about those half a million students, faculty, and staff? Do they agree with what President Drake said? I doubt it. Dobbs is now the law of the land, but California permits abortions, and may, this fall, add a clause to the state’s constitution protecting the right to abortion. Good for them! In fact, Drake didn’t have to say anything, for his University and his state (and UC hospitals)  already allow abortion. What he’s doing here is giving official condemnation to the Dobbs verdict without having to do anything about it (he can’t; it’s the law for the time being). The statement represents another case of performative wokeness that shows Drake’s virtue—but at the cost of repressing the speech of those who are “pro-life”. (I hate to write that term, preferring “anti-abortion”).

And Drake could do this for nearly everything, though of course so long as the Left is ascendant at his University, his statements will always be pro-Left. Another state’s University system could issue a completely different statement: one approving Dobbs and damning Roe v. Wade.

But the point is that none of this has anything to do with the mission of a university. Drake and others could write as individuals, but they should never write as if they represent everybody involved with the University of California. (Of course were I Drake, I’d keep pretty much to myself, like a judge, because he has professional cachet even when writing as an individual. But that is his choice.)

Eugene Volokh, writing at his site “The Volokh Conspiracy” at Reason, agrees with me. Click the screenshot to see his take:

Volokh adheres to our Kalven Report and even quotes it, but you can read that for yourself.  Here’s his take on Drake, and I heartily agree:

I don’t think that a public university’s “mission and values” should be to promote a reading of the Constitution as securing abortion rights, or as not securing abortion rights, as opposed to promoting research on this and related questions. And while of course a public university that runs hospitals should generally perform legal medical procedures, and train doctors with regard to legal medical procedures, I don’t think that justifies the university taking a stand on whether such legality is determined by state legislatures or by Supreme Court Justices.

That’s especially so when, as the UCLA Chancellor’s follow-up letter points out, “The decision is not expected to affect women’s reproductive rights in California,” so UC doesn’t even have much of a direct interest in the outcome of Dobbs as it affects its own operations. (There may be more room for statements by a public university president as to political decisions that do directly affect the operations of the university, such as changes in funding, statutes related to student admissions, and the like.)

It turns out that the University of California has its own version of a Kalven Principle, issued in 1970. Volokh quotes it:

More broadly, I tend to agree with the 1970 statement by the Office of the UC President:

There are both educational and legal reasons why the University must remain politically neutral. Educationally, the pursuit of truth and knowledge is only possible in an atmosphere of freedom, and if the University were to surrender its neutrality, it would jeopardize its freedom. Legally, Article IX, section 9, of the State Constitution provides in part that “The University shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs…”

And yet here we see Drake violating the very principles of his own university system!

Volokh then points to the Kalven Report, including the famous excerpt I put above, and then reproduces an email written by Professor Leslie Johns of UCLA’s political science department to the UCLA chancellor—an email that includes this:

Abortion is not a simple matter of access to health care. It is a complex moral and political question that involves balancing fundamental rights to life and physical autonomy. By denying this reality, you are asserting a political position. Yet your employment as a public employee explicitly prohibits you from using your office for political purposes. It is both inappropriate and illegal for you (and for me) to use our official capacity to make claims that specific abortion policies or constitutional interpretations are “antithetical to the University of California’s mission and values.”

In effect, she’s underlining the Kalven Principle that a university should not issue statements that will chill discussion, nor should it issue definitive proclamations on debatable issues. I’m not sure if Drake is, as Johns asserts, doing something illegal by issuing the “UC Statement.” But Kudos to Professor Johns for taking the Chancellor on a trip to the woodshed!

Like freedom of speech itself on campus, the Kalven Principle is always under assault by those who want to control political discourse at universities. It’s a never-ending fight, even at the University of Chicago which, like the University of California, professes political and ideological neutrality—but doesn’t hesitate to violate it when it professors or administrators want to flaunt their virtue.

Cambridge University tries once again to enforce “respect” in its free-speech regulations

June 17, 2022 • 10:45 am

In September of last year I reported about the apparent resolution of a controversy about free speech at Cambridge University that had been going on for two years (see earlier posts here and here). The controversy was about the balance between free speech, which Cambridge purports to support, and “respect” for others which they wanted to mandate. Here’s one version of a resolution the university wanted to pass (my bolding):

The University of Cambridge, as a world-leading education and research institution, is fully committed to the principle, and to the promotion, of freedom of speech and expression. The University’s core values are ‘freedom of thought and expression’ and ‘freedom from discrimination’. The University fosters an environment in which all of its staff and students can participate fully in University life, and feel able to question and test received wisdom, and to express new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions within the law, without fear of disrespect or discrimination. In exercising their right to freedom of expression, the University expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the differing opinions of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom of expression. The University also expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the diverse identities of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom from discrimination. While debate and discussion may be robust and challenging, all speakers have a right to be heard when exercising their right to free speech within the law.

Many people including me opposed this bill because of the implied chilling of speech that might offend others (lack of “respect”). In the end, the University voted it down by a huge margin. A victory for free speech?

Not so fast! According to this article from Inside Higher Ed (click to read for free), Cambridge is back with a similar if not identical proposal

I haven’t found a copy of the new proposal, but the free-speech regulations already in place are here. An excerpt:

The University of Cambridge, as a world-leading education and research institution, is fully committed to the principle, and to the promotion, of freedom of speech and expression. The University’s core values are ‘freedom of thought and expression’ and ‘freedom from discrimination’. The University fosters an environment in which all of its staff and students can participate fully in University life, and feel able to question and test received wisdom, and to express new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions within the law, without fear of intolerance or discrimination. In exercising their right to freedom of expression, the University expects its staff, students and visitors to be tolerant of the differing opinions of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom of expression.

Note the requested “tolerant,” which is okay by me so long as it means “don’t yell over other people or punch them if you disagree with them.” Note too that the University is FULLY COMMITTED to free speech and expression. The kerfuffle over the past two years was not about tolerance but about adding stuff about “respect”. That gives the regulations a completely different meaning, and was the pivot word that killed the revised resolution. Here are the two most relevant meanings of “respect” from the Oxford English Dictionary (their emphasis):

Deferential regard or esteem felt or shown towards a person, thing, or quality.

The condition or state of being esteemed, honoured, or highly thought of. Frequently with in, esp. in to hold in (high, etc.) respect.

There’s no way I can esteem, honor, or think highly of those who promulgate nonsense.

Clearly, though, Cambridge just can’t give up the idea that free speech and “respect” are compatible. But there’s no reason I should respect Donald Trump or the Proud Boys, even if I do defend their right to promulgate stupidity. Here’s what Inside Higher Ed reported yesterday

The University of Cambridge’s incoming leader could become immediately embroiled in a free speech row, with a number of academics opposing a new “mutual respect” policy.

A consultation has been held on a second draft of the document that aims to “prevent inappropriate behavior in the workplace” alongside a new grievance policy that outlines how complaints will be dealt with.

While both documents stress that they should be read in conjunction with the university’s free speech statement, critics said they represent management trying to restrict speech beyond its legal responsibilities.

And, for crying out loud, they’re back two years later trying to change “tolerate” to “respect” again!

The policy’s aim is to create “a safe, welcoming and inclusive community which nurtures a culture of mutual respect and courtesy,” and it states, “There is no place for any form of bullying, harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct, or victimization in our community.”

That’s fine, but that’s not the same thing as showing “disrespect”.

But Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge, said “respect” was the wrong choice of word, particularly as this terminology was removed from the free speech statement in favor of “tolerate” after a vote in the university’s governing body, Regent House.

“It is unreasonable to expect atheists to respect the views of religious believers, or to expect climate change activists to respect the work of earth scientists who are trying to make mining or oil drilling more efficient, or to expect campaigners for social justice to respect law professors who advise banks how to avoid regulation. What is reasonable is to expect members of the university to treat each other with tolerance and courtesy,” Anderson said.

He added that the draft policy “reads as if it has been adapted from a corporate HR manual” and does not consider the complexity of the university’s structures, which includes emeritus staff and visiting professors as well as those who work directly for the colleges.

I can’t help but put in a quote here from Mencken:

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

But it gets worse: there appears to be some “compulsory training” that goes along with this proposal (my emphasis):

Visitors, suppliers and others will be expected to behave in a manner that is consistent with the code of behavior outlined in the policy, but Anderson said it was unclear how this would be enforced in reality.

Ahmed added that he had “grave concerns” about the compulsory training element that would be introduced for all staff on areas such as diversity, which he claimed had “proven to be useless.”

There’s new leadership at Cambridge, and they apparently haven’t learned from the big failure two years ago (my emphasis):

A previous version of the same document was withdrawn in May 2021, and shortly afterward, Vice Chancellor Stephen Toope announced his early departure from his position. He will be replaced on an interim basis starting in October by Anthony Freeling, outgoing president of Hughes Hall, Cambridge, just as the final versions of the new policies are likely to come to Regent House for a vote.

Free speech concerns are likely to be a key feature of Freeling’s brief six-month tenure, with the government looking to pass its Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

A Cambridge spokesman said the policy was clear that it could not be used to undermine the university’s statement on freedom of speech, and this point had been emphasized to those concerned.

Why can’t the Cambridge administration just give up on this? Opposition to the previous “respect” replacement was said to be between four to one and seven to one. Nobody wants this change, and nevertheless the admin persists. They need to learn that enforcing “respect” in discourse cannot be harmonized with Cambridge’s free speech policy, for if you give someone offense with your words, they can and will claim that you’re not respecting them.

But saying that “you don’t respect me” is no more of an argument than “I’m offended”, and doesn’t belong in any regulations about free speech.

Garth Cooper explains why he resigned from New Zealand’s Royal Society

March 24, 2022 • 8:30 am

I’ve explained several times that two members of the Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ), philosopher Robert Nola and biochemist Garth Cooper (distinguished members of their trade), resigned from the RSNZ after a recent investigation cleared them of being miscreants after criticizing the government’s initiative to teach Mātauranga Māori (MM), or Māori “ways of knowing”, as coequal to science in science classes. They were accused, among other things, of causing “harm” to people by expressing this view.

Cooper and Nola, along with five other University of Auckland professors (one now deceased) had given this opinion in a short letter to The Listener, a popular Kiwi website. While the University of Auckland also attacked all seven signers—a blatant violation of their right of academic freedom—the University has now quietly shelved its criticisms, but their promise to have a public University debate about the merit of teaching MM as science seems to have disappeared as well.

At any rate, Nola issued a statement explaining why he resigned despite being exculpated, and I posted that here. (It was largely a free-speech issue, but there were several reasons.)

Now Garth Cooper has issued his own statement about why he resigned. I’ve put the bulk of it below the fold, but give a brief excerpt here. (Note that Cooper is part Māori and has spent much of his career educating and helping the Māori.)

Cooper:

The events that in the end led me to resign followed on from my signing of the letter “In defence of science” (NZ Listener, 31 July 2021) along with six of my colleagues. Our combined expertise includes biology, biochemistry, psychology, education, philosophy of science, and medicine, and all of us are expert science educators and communicators.

I signed the letter to make clear, in a public forum, my opposition and deep concern about processes now underway in New Zealand that are evidently undermining literacy, numeracy, and science literacy, particularly amongst Māori children.

I have Maori heritage. For most children, a good education is often their best hope of improving their trajectory in life and I was raised in that belief. I did not experience anti-Māori bias. Real bias stems from the view that Māori can’t do things or participate fully in society because they’re Māori. Unfortunately, the partial substitution of mātauranga Maori for international-format science education, perhaps unintendedly, is implying that limitation.

. . . An NCEA (NZ’s public examination system) working group referred to science as a “Western European invention”. We strongly objected to that particular characterization since science is universal. One recent extreme of some astonishing views being introduced, for example, claims that “to insist Māori children learn to read is an act of colonisation” [see here].

. . .The inherent bias against students in suggesting that rather than a sound grounding in mathematics, biology, chemistry and physics, there is to be parity with non-scientific systems such as mātauranga Māori, will be massively counterproductive for all students, but especially biased against Māori.

Māori are good students when they are afforded the proper opportunity to learn, and I have specific knowledge and experience of this based on my past formal roles in Māori education. Their right to unbiased access to optimal education, if they wish, should be protected vigorously.

This whole mess has made everyone look bad save the “Satanic Seven” who signed the initial Listener letter. Those seven have been vindicated. But The University of Auckland has embarrassed itself by apparently worshiping MM and by criticizing a perfectly reasonable letter (read it; it’s short). The RSNZ simply looks foolish and inept for investigating the signers of the letter and especially for its initial statement (now quietly removed) given below:

And the government of New Zealand, once a bellwether of true liberalism and progressivism, now looks weak and woke, giving precedence to the valorization of its indigenous population over scientific truth.

Where this will end is in the watering down of science education in New Zealand and the departure of its best students to study elsewhere. (It has not escaped my notice that there are parallels with what’s going on with the politicization of science in the U.S.). MM is surely something that Kiwis should be educated about, but it should never be taught as if it were equivalent to modern science. Educational and governmental officials in New Zealand, besotted with worship of all things indigenous, can’t seem to make that distinction.

Click “continue reading” to see Cooper’s full statement.

Continue reading “Garth Cooper explains why he resigned from New Zealand’s Royal Society” →

A New Zealand university surrenders to indigenous “ways of knowing”

February 18, 2022 • 12:45 pm

I’ve talked a lot on this site about Mātauranga Māori (“MM”), the mixture of indigenous legend, practical knowledge, superstition, theology, and morality that is suddenly about to be injected into New Zealand science classes (both secondary school and college), with the intent of teaching it as a “way of knowing’ coequal with science. Because it’s ideologically incorrect to say anything against the founding population, I get a lot of letters from disaffected Kiwis who abhor the anti-progressive trend of making modern science coequal with a lot of ancient superstition. (I repeat once again that MM should certainly be taught in school sociology, history, and anthropology classes, but only the small bit of practical knowledge that MM comprises deserves a place in science.)

Anyway, I got hold of the future plans of one university, the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand, which confirms the vow that two of its administrators recently took:: to make the whole university into an institution to teach MM and promulgate Maori “ways of knowing”. It is the wokest University of any school I know, for it has vowed that its mission is to adhere completely to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi: a document guaranteeing rights to the Māori, But that’s not Waikato’s only goal: it’s not just equality or even equity this university wants, but to convert itself into a kind of academic iwi, a Māori group or tribe.  Whatever its plans call for—and I have three planning documents—they’re not calling for building a real university. in the way we know it The university is to be decolonized and turned into an iwi, valorizing and teaching all things Māori.

First, here’s main strategy document for the next two years, which you can get as a pdf by clicking on the image:

This document isn’t as hard-nosed as the other two I’ll mention, but MM is a big part of it. A few goals (all bolding that isn’t italicized is mine):

Strategic priorities

1.) Embed mātauranga Māori into teaching, learning and the curriculum.

Number one!

From “Taskforce Objectives”:

Strategic priorities

2. Ensure that academic appointment, advancement and promotion processes require staff to reflect on their engagement with mātauranga Māori, as well as recognising the wider knowledge and contribution that Māori and Pacific staff provide to scholarship at the University. . .

5). Provide support and opportunities for staff to engage with matauranga Māori within their areas of academic expertise, and to ensure that matauranga Māori is embedded as part of the curriculum.

This ideological/political/religious basis for promotion, appointment, and advancement is explicitly forbidden in places like The University of Chicago. All that matters, according to our Shils report, is research, teaching (including supervising grad students), service, and contributing to the intellectual community. Any considerations of gender, race, ideology, ethnicity, and religion are forbidden.

And the last paragraph:

The success of initiatives to recruit new and retain existing Māori and Pacific academic staff will determine our ability to provide appropriate leadership for the integration of Mātauranga Māori and traditional Pacific knowledge into the curriculum and our research programmes.

There’s a lot of embedding planned, but I must that 32% of students at this school are of Māori descent, the highest proportion of that ethnic group in any New Zealand university. But make no mistake: all NZ are going this route. The question is whether the curriculum must cater to the “way of knowing” of the ethnic group that is so prevalent, and to be infused into the science curriculum. Two-thirds of the students, after all, are not Māori.

Here’s the second document, the “research plan”. Click to read it:

Here’s their main research objective (emphasis is mine except for the bits in italics)

OBJECTIVE 1- INCREASE RECOGNITION, INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY, OF OUR WORLD-CLASS SCHOLARSHIP THAT REFLECTS OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD, AND IN TE AO MĀORI, AND GROW THE NEXT GENERATION OF RESEARCHERS RECOGNISED FOR THEIR ABILITY TO CREATE SUSTAINABLE FUTURES THROUGH LOCAL AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP.

Scholarly excellence rooted in deep disciplinary expertise is the foundation upon which our research reputation rests. World-class scholarship means the excellence of our research is internationally-recognised and benchmarked. This does not mean the University’s research endeavours are only for the rest of the world, but must reflect our setting, our region, and our country, blending the perspectives of tangata whenua and tangata te Tiriti, as well as Pacific approaches and methodologies. Our unique opportunity, as we engage with the work-programme of the 2021 Taskforce, is to embed mātauranga throughout our researcher’s capabilities, treasure the input of Pacific knowledge systems, and celebrate the synergy with other approaches to science and knowledge generation. Recognising this opportunity, and working with it, will enable our research excellence to shine through.

. . . What will the University do to achieve this objective?

• Establish a process to identify and develop researcher capacity and capability in mātauranga Māori, and in Pacific research methodologies.

• Recognise a broader definition of excellence in our suite of annual research awards.

• Further develop specialist mātauranga competency among the professional staff supporting research, to deliver excellence in mātauranga.

. . . Pou Whaitake – Relevance operates at differing geographical scales: local, regional, national and international, and it encompasses our place in the world. Relevance means that mātauranga Māori, and Pacific knowledge systems cannot be separate from other approaches and methodologies, because we will benefit most when all are woven together to create synergy and space for all.

The above paragraph sounds good, but what does it really mean. How is one suppose to weave together the search for dark matter, or the nature of sexual selection, with MM? These are concepts developed outside that paradigm.

 . .We are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Taskforce Report (2021) and to become an institution that rejects casual and systemic racism, honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and values mātauranga Māori. University-based research has evolved over centuries in the traditions of Natural Philosophy, as such we cannot simply “bolt on” Māori and Pacific knowledge systems and hope to gain value, whereas if we deliberately make space for mātauranga and Pacific approaches we can add depth and meaning to our research endeavours. As such, mātauranga Māori will be woven throughout the four pou of excellence, impact, relevance and resilience; and is an integral part of all five objectives in this Plan.

Once again the Treaty (“Te Tiriti”) and MM are virtually worshipped, and will be made ubiquitous. They’re not just “bolted on” to education, either, they are woven throughout every aspect of education.

This university aspires to world-class excellence, but seems to think that embedding MM throughout the school will “enable [their] research excellence to shine through.” It won’t because world-class research is beyond MM itself, though of course perfectly capable of being done by Māori. What is happening is that the University is cosseting its Māori students in an ethnic cocoon at the expense of their education. They’ll know a lot of MM, which they probably know already, but won’t be exposed to “non-Pacific knowledge systems” and therefore won’t acquire a parochial education.  Now I’m not sure what balance needs to be struck between MM and “Western” or “Crown” knowledge, but you don’t see these research plans calling for the students to be exposed to the classics, to modern science, or much of the humanities. If you read this poorly written document, you’ll see it’s all about “achieving research excellence,” but it’s really obsessed with measuring research excellence. There’s a lot of talk of aspirations, but no concrete plan to realize those aspirations beyond infusing everything with MM.

Finally, here’s the Academic Plan (click on screenshot):

He Timatanga / Introduction

In recognising the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi and emābracing our motto Ko Te Tangata / For the People, diversity, equity and inclusion figure prominently in this Academic Plan. Teaching for diversity means acknowledging and working with all students’ lived experiences. Equitable teaching and learning is available to all, is fair and just. Inclusive teaching and learning happen in environments where everyone feels a sense of belonging, that are equally accessible for all, and are welcoming for all.’ In addition, the Plan acknowledges the important role that Māori, and also Pacific learners, teachers or educators, families and communities play in enhancing the mana of the University of Waikato. Pacific peoples have a rich history and tradition of knowledge and learning which the University is keen to harness in order to ensure our Pacific students flourish and excel.

Once again homage is paid to the principles of the 1840 Treaty, which says nothing about what is to be taught in schools. It’s being interpreted to mean “Māori principles will dominate and guide education at this university.”

And the PRIMARY academic objective:

OBJECTIVE 1 – EMBED MĀTAURANGA MĀORI INTO TEACHING AND LEARNING

I won’t translate this for you except to say that Aotearoa is the Māori word for “New Zealand”:

The University of Waikato, in committing to implementing recommendations in the Report of the Taskforce to become an institution that genuinely honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is not systematically or casually racist and that values mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge and Māori ways of knowing), has an opportunity to lead the way in this. Truly transforming our teaching, learning and curriculum in this manner will benefit tangata whenua as well as all students and staff, making the University of Waikato a welcoming, inclusive, forward-thinking, place to study and work. Tangata whenua as kaitiaki and as key educators are helping bring about greater cultural and environmental awareness. Some of our papers and programmes at Waikato already fully embed within them notions of kaitiaki and mātauranga. We all, however, need to commit to inspiring and supporting students to be guardians of our precious resources which will also help us advance the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. One of the principal outcomes recommended by the Report of the Taskforce is: “All staff and students enjoy enhanced academic experiences and results from the embedding of mātauranga Māori through existing teaching and research approaches”. Over the past few years, there has emerged within Aotearoa New Zealand’s universities and other research organisations a wider appreciation and integration of the important role mātauranga Māori plays in regards to understanding the world around us. This ought, where possible, to extend to teaching, learning – what we teach and how we teach it. This includes assessment because as the Report of the Taskforce (p. 29) notes, it is important to: “Establish alternative forms of assessment in addition to, alongside, or in place of written forms of assessment where suitable and effective (e.g. oral, creative practice)”.

And this is how they will do it:

What will the University do to achieve this objective?

• Develop and begin to implement professional development for all staff on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

• Begin work on establishing exactly what a mātauranga Māori approach to teaching, learning and curriculum might look like in different disciplines. In some subjects this work is well established, in others it is underway, in still others it is yet to begin. In reality, it is likely that mātauranga Māori will be more challenging to implement in some subjects than in others but conversations need to begin and steps taken towards this enhanced academic experience

• Develop and begin to implement professional development for colleagues on the principles and practices of mātauranga Māori in relation to teaching and learning

• Review ‘Cultural Perspectives’ papers to ensure the criteria and learning outcomes remain relevant and are achievable and to consider the relationship between existing Cultural Perspectives papers and future papers that will adopt or engage with a mātauranga Māori approach

Note that some subjects may be harder to “make over” with MM than others (try quantum mechanics or evolutionary biology, for instance) but made over they will be.

To enter into New Zealand secondary or tertiary education is to go down a rabbit hole where all values are upturned to adhere to the Treaty and to MM. If universities do this, so thinks their administrations as well as the Ardern government, they will take its place among the great educational institutions of the world. But everybody know that’s not true. In fact, secondary education in New Zealand has been in the dumper for years, and this new direction will just make it worse.  Perhaps the government doesn’t realize that this will eventually redound upon New Zealand’s international rankings. Those who focus obsessively on Māorizing universities may not suffer, but eventually the Vice Chancellors of the schools will be held accountable.