How universities lost their balance

What has happened in higher education that has allowed political convictions to replace reasoned, evidenced-based research and analysis?  

The 2023–24 events represent extreme examples of this trend, but not its origin. The trend has been less apparent in publications than in classroom teaching, where faculty political advocacy can lack nuance.  

When the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1970 delicately modified its 1940 statement on academic freedom, it dropped its opposition to faculty raising political issues with no relevance to the course subject. The broader prohibition had been invoked in the AAUP’s founding 1915 declaration and had thus held for more than half a century. In 1970 the AAUP instead warned against “persistent” intrusion of irrelevant political subjects. That gave licence to, say, a chemistry teacher addressing the outbreak of World War II or the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr in class. But it did not countenance the recruitment of students to a political cause.  

In 2024, however, we saw faculty members using class time not only to express their views but also to urge students to support the anti-Zionist encampments. That was not what the AAUP had in mind. A lecturer can honourably express anguish at Israeli and Palestinian deaths but not encourage students to take specific political actions in support of such feelings.  

Of course, a faculty member condemning Israel at a campus rally is still sending a message to students, but there are ways to reinforce classroom neutrality. One can differentiate between public and pedagogical roles, though some teaching staff are increasingly disinclined to do so.