Campuses in the University of Wisconsin System have been abuzz since last week, when Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos cited data he obtained through an open records request to support his claim that campuses "more times than not" seek "a liberal-minded individual to disperse information to the young, developing minds who pay them thousands of dollars for their education."
While many professors disputed his claim, and others said it was a valid point to keep in mind, they uniformly took issue with the methodology of data analysis and assumptions behind the politician's provocative statements in his op-ed piece, "A Free Speech Challenge to the UW System".
The open records request yielded hundreds of speakers on campuses, and Vos focused on the 50 top-paid speakers of 2015 across the system. His raw data included only names and titles of speakers, the campus group or event to which they spoke, and how much they were paid. It did not include speakers who were invited but declined to make appearances. It did not include the speaker's topic.
"Any reader of Assembly Speaker Vos’ summary of UW honorary expenditures and his estimation of their political slant would like to know much more," said David Hoeveler, a professor of history at UW-Milwaukee. "By what measures did he and his team decide whether the recipients were 'liberal' or 'conservative'? At my university, those from the list with whom I am familiar balance pretty evenly; the list even includes one prominent neoconservative."
By their very nature, college campuses are "places for open and progressive thought," said Scott Adams, a UWM associate professor of economics and department chair. "(Vos) has a fundamental misunderstanding of how college campuses work."
Adams said the vast majority of campus speakers "aren't speaking about something political. ... Science, the arts, aren't inherently liberal in a political sense."
Some may consider social and economic inequality to be liberal issues, but colleges invite speakers to talk about them because they're important, Adams said.
Suggesting that Michael Sam, the first openly gay player in the NFL, is political because he's gay "is repressing free speech in and of itself," Adams said. "That's reducing him to a political viewpoint. He's a human being who has a story."
Sam's speaking engagement at UW-La Crosse late last year is an example Vos raises in his commentary.
Whether it is a liberal position or not, universities try to err on the side of inclusiveness and tolerance, said UWM political science professor and department chair Kathleen Dolan.
"Many current conservatives who offer social and political commentary might be likely to offer talks that are counter to inclusive instincts on any number of issues — sexuality, immigration, race, etc.," Dolan said. "I can't imagine a campus inviting a speaker to talk against LGBT rights unless it was at a religiously affiliated school or a school with a clear conservative and religious identity."
Academics bring people to campuses to speak on academic issues, and student organizations bring people to speak on issues of interest to their membership, she said.
Adams suggested looking at a list of campus speakers, along with a transcript of what each one said, to arrive at an evidence-based conclusion about whether conservative viewpoints are fairly represented on campuses. "Let's dig deeper rather than say a name and title of a talk."
If agreed-upon standards for designating political ideologies or sympathies could be established, though, Hoeveler said he would not be surprised that "yes, 'liberal' would predominate" today.
"I’ll go even further and repeat what I’ve said previously: The greater threat to academic freedom today comes from the radical left, less than from the radical right," said Hoeveler, adding he voted for Ronald Reagan twice and used to be an ardent Republican, "but people were never retaliatory to me."
"That an accomplished public servant like former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, invited to give the commencement address at Rutgers in 2014, should receive such violent protests as to dissuade her from appearing, illustrates leftist intolerance on that campus," Hoeveler said. "The University of Chicago recently took the bold step to assert that it, for one, would not cave into pressure for 'safe spaces,' an action implied in the UW Regents’ statement against shielding individuals “from ideas and opinions they, or others, find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
Vos does have a point, and campuses need to be aware of it, Hoeveler said. "We probably could do better."
Adams agreed.
"It could be helpful to remind us all that there are alternative viewpoints," he said. "It's important we do continue to check ourselves on that point."
Vos said he was challenging the UW System to "practice what it preaches," referring to a Board of Regents policy statement approved last December affirming the board's commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression.
The policy statement says that although the university values civility, "concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussions of ideas."
Kit Beyer, communications director for Vos, told the Journal Sentinel that Vos met with UW System President Ray Cross the same day the op-ed piece appeared, and the two agreed on the need for a variety of perspectives and viewpoints to be heard and understood with mutual respect.
"I think it's a good discussion that's been started," Beyer said. "This is not politically motivated. We're just advocating for more voices on campus.".
