MIT faculty adopts “Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom”
I think the main strength of this activist movement in academia is that it operates through fear. In an environment where much depends on word of mouth and personal reputation, people could lose their entire careers for violating new, rapidly transforming cultural mores. So, they self-censor, and some voice support for the activists to avoid becoming a target themselves. (Cue the 60-year-old professors who have never used Twitter putting pronouns in their email signatures and adding &#x27;#BLM&#x27; messages on their personal websites.[1]) The overall effect is that a minority can extract the obedience of a majority.<p>Public statements like this will have little effect unless they are actively enforced. This means that violators must be officially sanctioned by administrators, who are often their peers. It&#x27;s clear to me that most academics (including myself, I&#x27;m ashamed to admit) are cowards who will bend their public positions, even on academic matters, in favor of whoever wields the greatest power. Not until activists are met with stern opposition and loss of prestige will people stop currying favor with them.<p>If, though, I am wrong in my assessment and most academics and students, rather than a dominant minority, wholly believe that offensive utterances must be punished and unsavory research banned, I think there isn&#x27;t much left to do. Any official action, let alone the posted public statement, will only galvanize people to seek out more aggressive policies and oust those that oppose them.<p>There are real stakes in this conflict, and right now, activists in academia (hard sciences) are pushing in my view really significant policy proposals.<p>From MIT geophysical sciences department:<p>1. Penalize (during peer review) research that doesn&#x27;t cite black authors.<p>2. Implement diversity boards that have final say in hiring and tenure decisions. (They need not have field expertise.)<p>From several Broad Institute faculty and post-docs:<p>1. Restrict publication of genetic research in white populations until genetic sampling of other populations around the world reach parity.<p>2. Ban white researchers from conducting genetic research in populations in non-white countries.<p>3. Ban genetic research that can be stigmatizing to designated vulnerable populations (e.g. genetic component of educational attainment, the genetic architecture of autism, etc.).<p>[1] For clarity, these two relate to first-hand examples of professors making statements solely out of fear of not being able to attract students their labs&#x2F;departments.