University leaders must resist funder pressure to toe ideological lines

American colleges and universities are under an ideologically driven financial assault.

Recent examples are numerous. Lawmakers in South Carolina slashed funds for two public colleges that recommended gay-oriented books for first-year reading. Donors at the University of Pennsylvania demanded the resignation of its president for declining to cancel a Palestinian literature festival. A major contributor pressed Harvard University to release the names of students who blamed Israel for Hamas’ atrocious attacks. Government officials in 44 states introduced measures to ban or restrict the teaching of critical race theory.

Sadly, funds for higher education often come with strings attached. In effect, irate governors, legislators and private donors have given American colleges and universities an ultimatum: either endorse our views and rein in your students, faculty and administrators on controversial issues, or suffer diminished financial resources.

For a few impassioned financial stakeholders, the litmus test of institutional worth is not just the political correctness of what students, faculty and administrators say. It is also what they omit to say, as well as the specific terms they use. Cardinal sins include branding American society as “systematically racist”, supporting the rights of transgender students in intercollegiate sports, falling short of labelling Palestinian militants “terrorist”, or, on the other side, claiming that Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories are justified.

Never mind the sentiment, intention, balance or basis for one’s beliefs. The use of politically incorrect terms, the omission of “politically correct” ones, the failure to address the issue at hand, or addressing it only belatedly could be financially risky for the institution, and career-limiting for its constituencies. 

But whether they agree with the views of their internal constituencies or their external stakeholders, leaders of American higher education should resist donors’ and politicians’ demands to adopt a particular ideological stance. At stake is not just academic freedom, a precondition for intellectual progress, but also institutional autonomy, a precondition for academic freedom.

Such demands go against the very mission and purpose of higher education: namely, free enquiry and the pursuit of the truth. They undermine the role of the institution as an impartial voice for all stakeholders, regardless of ideology. Donors and politicians imposing their views on institutions in this way neglect the virtues of critical thinking, civil discourse, debate and dissent. In their eyes, such values are rendered worthless when they produce the “wrong” result. 

It is reasonable for public funders and private donors, as vital stakeholders of the institution, to insist that college and university leaders institute policies to ensure the academic integrity of courses and to prohibit “hate speech”, such as antisemitic, Islamophobic, racist, and homophobic recriminations, that threatens the safety and well-being of staff, students and faculty. But it is unreasonable for financial stakeholders to dictate, under financial threat, what should or should not be taught in the classroom; what ideas are acceptable from an academic perspective; what individuals or groups should be allowed to air their views; and what outcomes should ensue from the learning process.

Colleges and universities derive their vitality from the free expression of ideas, however virtuous or vile they may be to public funders and private donors. The legitimacy of ideas depends on their rationality and empirical basis, not their financial backing.

If purse-string holders disagree with the unconventional views of students, faculty and administrators, they are at liberty, like everyone else, to challenge the soundness and empirical foundation of these views. Irate politicians and donors who make headlines by threatening to withdraw funding merely call attention to the views they object to.

They also raise doubts as to their altruistic intentions. They reveal themselves not to have the genuine interests of the institutions they fund at heart. The motivation of their financial support is revealed not to be to further the unfettered pursuit of truth and the expression of diverse perspectives but, rather, to seek ideological control of the next generation of societal leaders.

No university leader should even contemplate giving in to that.

Richard J. Joseph is a senior consultant for the Association of Governing Boards of American Colleges and Universities and is a past president of Babson Global, Inc., a wholly owned education subsidiary of Babson College.