Having been steered to the right by recent appointments, the U.S. Supreme Court now prepares to revisit the issue of affirmative action in college admissions, and leaders of the nation’s most selective undergraduate institutions will likely be watching closely.  Consideration of race in college admissions, as one of multiple forms of diversity, has long been deemed permissible on the grounds that all students benefit educationally from interaction with those who are different from them.  However, should the Court rule that diversity of skin tone can no longer be used as a proxy for diversity of viewpoint, how many of today’s academic leaders will even be able to articulate aspects of such diversity that they truly value?

Recently, I was one of five cosponsors of a motion to adopt the so-called Chicago Principles in defense of freedom of expression at Bucknell University, where we are all tenured professors.  This landmark document was named for the University of Chicago, where it was published in 2015.  The document traced its origins to a series of discussions, begun 25 years earlier, which not only sought to address issues of harassment on campus, but were envisioned also “as means of broadening the discussion on issues of race, gender, and sexuality at the University of Chicago, and engaging with the bedrock ideals of free expression.”  Since the statement of principle was first published, it has been adopted by over 80 institutions.

Given the noble history of the Chicago Principles, as well as the alignment of both their substance and intent with the ideals of academic freedom and inclusive excellence, both of which are at least given lip service widely in academe, their adoption at Bucknell would seem almost a foregone conclusion to casual observers.  However, to those of us who have built our academic careers there, over the better part of three decades, it was by no means a certainty.  In fact, it was more a question of how the motion would be derailed than whether or not it would be.

When the time came, the ingenuity and zeal of our colleagues did not fail them.  As one of the other cosponsors, Paul Siewers, has recounted elsewhere, before the motion could even be brought to the floor for debate, the vote on it was postponed indefinitely by a margin of 191 to 31, such that a supermajority will now be needed even to bring it to a vote in the future.  Without even a hint of irony, those who exercised the parliamentary maneuver dismissed the resolution itself as unnecessary.

Whereas an earlier version of the motion had met a similar fate, about five years ago, we knew all along that we faced an uphill battle.  Nevertheless, we gave it our best effort, even going so far as to conduct a 90-minute webinar, featuring Cornel West and Robert George, two prominent academics from opposite ends of the political spectrum, who have stood together in their endorsement of freedom of expression in higher education.  A recording of the webinar is linked to the article cited above.

Interestingly, the same body of research that undergirds the educational benefit theory of affirmative action also offers a powerful argument in support of the Chicago Principles, one that I articulated in the “opening act” of our webinar with Professors George and West.  In my presentation, I drew upon widely respected literature in the field of college student development to link engagement with diverse perspectives to both psychosocial and cognitive maturation, as well as the cultivation of complex problem-solving skills.

Situating diversity within the realm of ideas does not negate our commitment to racial and ethnic inclusivity.  On the contrary, it adds depth to our understanding of cultural differences, while also heightening our awareness of the diversity that exists within minority groups.  For example, in his previously cited article, Paul Siewers recounted a conversation that he had with an international student from Africa, who expressed frustration with other people’s efforts to conflate his interests with those of African-American students.  In reading this account, I was reminded of a similar conversation that I had with an international student from Latin America, who was presumed to be of like mind with Hispanic U.S. citizens, even by those who were aware of her background.

Looking beyond the matter of admissions, a less superficial commitment to diversity might also benefit minority faculty in hiring, retention, and promotion.  For example, I am reminded of the scholarly work of a former tenure-track faculty colleague, who explicitly drew upon her experience as a multiply minoritized woman to inform her analyses of issues in two separate subfields of her discipline.  Her support and outreach to current and prospective minority students also uniquely advanced the mission of the university, but the full impact of her work could easily be overlooked in more shallow views of diversity.  Needless to say, these subtler contributions of minority colleagues also would not be reflected in the sort of tabular data on faculty demographics that currently form the primary basis for bureaucratic bragging rights on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Meanwhile, a pending case before the U.S. District Court in Maryland will potentially shed light on protections against discrimination based on perspectives informed by membership in other protected classes.  I shared coverage of this case with my faculty colleagues, as well, during the days leading up to our meeting.  Against this backdrop, the relationship between ideological diversity and other forms of diversity becomes increasingly clear.  More to the point, so does the relationship between corresponding forms of discrimination.  Among the proscribed bases for discrimination, few fall more squarely within the realm of ideas than does religion.  Thus, taking a strong stand in support of freedom of expression would seem a prudent course of action on multiple fronts.

Moving forward, two important questions remain.  First, will the Supreme Court ultimately reject the use of the color of one’s skin as a proxy for the content of one’s character? Second, if it does, will Bucknell ultimately find itself on the right side of civil rights history?

Image: Bucknell University