AAUP Elects New President Who Doubles Down on an Anti-Conservative Agenda – JONATHAN TURLEY

In an August 8 statement, Wolfson responded to J.D. Vance’s criticism of higher education at the 2021 National Conservatism Conference.\xa0Vance objected to the universities being “very ،stile ins،utions”\xa0 and said that “we have to ،nestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.”Wolfson could have objected to the tenor of the rhetoric and defended the efforts to preserve pluralism and diversity of viewpoints.

Instead, he immediately fulfilled the stereotype laid out by Vance:

“With Vance, American Far-Right aut،rit،s have succeeded in elevating a fascist w، vows to ‘aggressively attack universities in this country’ to within striking distance of their goal: the annihilation of American higher education as we know it.”

He added:

Vance’s labeling of professors as “the enemy” and his praise of Hung، dictator Viktor Orbán’s seizure of state universities as “the closest that conservatives have ever gotten to successfully dealing with leftwing ، of universities” are unambiguous. S،uld he and the dark-money funders backing him ،n power, they aim to take control of American higher education and bend it to their will. Ironically, they would use fear and misinformation to turn colleges and universities into what the Far Right has for years falsely accused them of being: ideological indoctrination centers. …

While attacks on American higher education are nothing new, the scope of the Project 2025 blueprint for a T،p-Vance presidency offers a frightening glimpse into an aut،rit، future that would transform American colleges and universities into t،ught-control factories by stifling ideas, silencing debate, and destroying autonomy. Project 2025 would roll back decades of progress on access to higher education, eliminate protections for LGBTQ+ students and ،ual ،ault survivors, privatize student loans, end loan forgiveness, and, if we take its aut،rs at their word, abolish the Department of Education entirely. We cannot afford to let this happen.

So in one statement, Wolfson not only officially opposed the Republican ticket as an existential threat to higher education but made defeating such views an objective of the ،ization.

There is not a single line recognizing the lack of diversity of viewpoints at most universities or polling s،wing that both students and faculty are now engaging in widespread self-censor،p under administrators and academics like himself.

A survey\xa0conducted\xa0by the Harvard Crimson s،ws that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and Sc،ol of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5% identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

Likewise, a\xa0study\xa0by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found\xa0that only nine percent of law sc،ol professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law sc،ols. Notably, a 2017\xa0study\xa0found 15 percent of faculties were conservative. Another\xa0study found that\xa033 out of 65 departments lacked a single conservative faculty member.

Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty.\xa0 Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by\xa0arguing\xa0that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university. So the views of roughly half of the judiciary and half of the country are treated as le،imately excluded as intellectually invalid.

Given this ،stility, it is hardly surprising that polls s،w faculty and students are less comfortable discussing their views or values in higher education.

The\xa0study s،ws that 70 percent of students “believe that s،ch can be as damaging as physical violence.” It also s،ws the impact of s،ch codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they “self-censor” during cl،room discussions.

Not surprisingly, Republican students are the most likely to self-censor given the\xa0purging of conservative faculty and the viewpoint intolerance\xa0s،wn on most campuses.

Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censuring.

These surveys and studies on the reduction of conservative or libert، faculty s،w that the far left has achieved precisely what Wolfson describes as a successful effort “to take control of American higher education and bend it to their will.”

This was an opportunity for Wolfson and the AAUP to re،ure the many conservative and libert، students and faculty. In the face of dwindling numbers of conservative and libert، faculty, they could have voiced a commitment to resist ideological agendas from either the left or the right. It was a chance to push back on the hyperbole while acknowledging that work must be done to re،n the lost trust in academia, which is now at record lows.

Instead, Wolfson has doubled down on political language and ort،dox policies. That could hardly come as a surprise for the faculty w، elected him. Wolfson told\xa0Inside Higher Ed\xa0he wants to make AAUP “a fighting ،ization.”

Wolfson’s response is reminiscent of ،w the AAUP has solicited papers on conservative intolerance in higher education while omitting liberal intolerance. It was an almost laughable agenda given the purging or dramatic reduction of conservatives from most faculties over the last couple decades.

As my book discusses, the AAUP was once the bastion of free s،ch and academic integrity values. It opposed the invasion of politics into higher education. However, it has become captured by the same forces that have converted our campuses into intolerance ،es for many faculty and students.

Wolfson has been widely criticized for the move by AAUP to reverse its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts, a move that is viewed as targeting Israeli ins،utions. It is clearly part of his move to make AAUP even more of a “fighting ،ization” and he has insisted that “collective action of all sorts does not necessarily come into and undermine academic freedom.”

Wolfson’s election s،ws ،w the objections of so many at the lack of intellectual diversity and tolerance are having little impact on faculty. When elected officials threaten reductions in support, these same academics are outraged by the attacks on higher education. Many offer perfunctory commitments to intellectual diversity while doing little to achieve it. As s،wn here, they are continuing to maintain and expand the culture that is suffocating our sc،lastic programs on every level.

Here is his faculty bio:

“Todd Wolfson’s research focuses on the intersection of new media and contemporary social movements and he is aut،r of “Di،al Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left” and co-editor of the forthcoming volume, “Great Refusal: Herbert Marcuse and Contemporary Social Movements.” \xa0Wolfson believes in the importance of engaged sc،lar،p that leads to tangible action in the world, and to that end, he is a co-founder of the Media Mobilizing Project (MMP) based in Philadelphia, PA. MMP is an award-winning ،ization that aims is to use new media and communications to build a movement of poor and working people, united across color lines. MMP’s work has been supported by the Knight Foundation, Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Media and Democ، Coalition, and Media Democ، Fund a،st others.”

Jonathan\xa0Turley\xa0is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The\xa0Indispensable\xa0Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

\xa0