Viewpoint Diversity Could Soon Be One-Sided

Higher ed critics say colleges lack viewpoint diversity. And to some extent that’s true. For decades faculty have skewed left politically. But there’s a problem with how we are—or are not—defining viewpoint diversity that could lead to less, not more, plurality on campuses. 

Much like God, money or Taylor Swift, viewpoint diversity has become a mirror concept onto which the observer projects her own values, fears and aspiration. For Heterodox Academy, an academic life–enriching viewpoint diversity is based on differences in things like socioeconomic status, political and philosophical views, religion or cultural background. For the state of Florida it means “the exposure of students, faculty, and staff to, and the encouragement of their exploration of, a variety of ideological and political perspectives.” For some conservative critics of higher ed, achieving viewpoint diversity means an education in Western civilization and American ideals. 

The Trump administration’s idea of viewpoint diversity is less clear, however, despite the administration demanding more of it from Harvard and higher education as a whole. This is convenient for keeping the criticism central to the national conversation around higher ed. 

At the same time, though, the administration is making policy changes that push colleges to incorporate its own political agenda. Yesterday, the administration promised a competitive advantage in federal grant funding to nine universities if they agreed to ban race and sex-based hiring and admissions, to freeze tuition for the next five years, to cap undergraduate international enrollment at 15 percent and to require standardized tests in admissions. The compact also requires universities have a “vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus”.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the administration told colleges that signing the agreement “will signal to students, parents and contributors that learning and equality are university priorities” and that the federal government would “have assurance” that the schools are complying with civil-rights law and “pursuing federal priorities with vigor.” It appears the administration wants to move away from the stick of punishing fines and investigations and toward the carrot of formal compliance with the president’s agenda. 

Meanwhile, last month Education Secretary Linda McMahon said her department plans to consider how “patriotic” an institution’s education is when it issues discretionary grants. 

Prospective students are already comparing colleges based on the types of viewpoints they expect to encounter on campus. Recent research shows that students are willing to pay more than $2,000 extra in tuition to go to a college where fewer students hold political beliefs that oppose their own. Beth Akers, an economist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told me that the fact that viewpoint diversity on college campuses is part of the national conversation will change the way Americans shop for college. 

“When students begin to care about this feature of their education, it will push colleges, who are eager to please at this moment when enrollments are dropping, to adopt and advertise their strategies on this front.”

More perspectives and opinions on college campuses are good things. And needed. And students are paying attention to intellectual diversity when they’re choosing where to study. But if federal funding is contingent on agreement with a political agenda, higher ed could find itself educating students on the White House’s priorities rather than fostering a vibrant marketplace of ideas.