Heterodox Academy

We are a politically diverse group of more than 2,300 professors and graduate students who have come together to improve the quality of research and education in universities by increasing viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding, and constructive disagreement.

WHAT IS VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY? WATCH OUR VIDEO.

How Does HxA Help?

We offer a range of resources designed to cultivate reasoned conversations, deeper empathy, the ability to see beyond one’s own perspective, and a capacity for meaningful engagement with diverse others. We partner with professors, administrators, and students to depolarize college campuses and classrooms.

Key Tools:

An interactive, psychology-based platform designed to depolarize campuses and foster mutual understanding across differences.

A self-report tool you can use to assess which students are feeling intimidated to speak up about which topics and why.

Rates America’s top 200 universities according to the degree of viewpoint diversity you can expect to find on campus.

LATEST BLOG POSTS

frontpage

- Julie Wronski on How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party: Half Hour of Heterodoxy #36
  Podcast: Play in new window | DownloadSubscribe: Android | RSSShow Notes In today’s episode, Chris talks to Julie Wronski, professor of political science at the University of Mississippi. In a new paper, she and her coauthors show a difference between the average authoritarianism of Bernie Sanders voters and Hillary Clinton voters. Most of us know how to identify authoritarian leaders, but in today’s interview Julie explains how to define authoritarianism among voters, and why her findings matter to people outside political science. Timeline 0:00 Intro 3:05 Why do people associate authoritarianism with conservatives? 6:00 Why is authoritarianism dividing parties now? 13:00 Bob Altemeyer’s method of measuring authoritarianism 17:10 The right-wing measure vs. child-rearing measure of authoritarianism 25:18 Why is this relevant to other academics? Article Wronski, Julie et al. (2018). “A Tale of Two Democrats: How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party.” Journal of Politics 80(4): 1384- 1388. Books Altemeyer, Enemies of Freedom Stenner, The Authoritarian Dynamic Heatherington & Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics; Heatherington & Weiler, Prius or Pickup: How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide … See the full list of episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy >> Transcript This is a transcript of this episode.... Read more...
- Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship
  Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, and the Director of Communications at Heterodox Academy. He also has a MA in philosophy from the University of Arizona. Over the past year, Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay & Peter Boghossian published a series of hoax papers in humanities journals oriented towards the “critical study” of gender and sexuality. Their plot was discovered midway through, forcing them to go public prematurely. In a journal-length essay explaining their methods, findings, and intentions, “Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship,” the authors hold up their publications as proof that research on race, gender, sexuality – along with the discipline of sociology – are defined by groupthink, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, which allow bogus work to regularly be published in these (sub)fields. Dubbed “Sokal Squared,” or the “Grievance Studies hoax,” the incident has become something of a Rorschach Test within academic and media spaces: Those already disposed towards skepticism of “critical” scholarship on race, gender or sexuality view the incident as damning proof of a deep rot within these subfields, and perhaps with social research or academia more broadly. Those more sympathetic to “critical studies” instead see a deeply flawed and limited experiment — and accuse the authors of overstating their findings, speaking beyond their data and, intentionally or not, feeding into the agenda of right-wing reactionaries. There have been relatively few unexpected validators or critics. The purpose of this essay is not to adjudicate between these rival perspectives, but to provide some critical context on the background of these types of experiments and this particular study, explore the relevant ethical considerations, and provide a concise description and analysis of what the trio found (click to expand). As an organization that prizes pluralism and disagreement — with more than 2k members holding diverse views on most issues — Heterodox Academy does not really have “official positions.” Opinions expressed here are those of the author(s). Publication does not imply endorsement by Heterodox Academy or any of its members. We welcome your comments below. Feel free to challenge and disagree, but please try to model the sort of respectful and constructive criticism that makes viewpoint diversity most valuable. Comments that include obscenity or that sound like a tirade or screed are likely to be deleted.... Read more...

The Value of Heterodoxy in the Academy

Featured members discuss our vital mission and the issues that arise in climates of orthodoxy on campus, including Leda Cosmides, Robert P. George, Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Steven Pinker, Richard Shweder, Nadine Strossen, and John Tooby.

“The whole educational process will be enriched and enlivened by a multiplicity of voices and perspectives.“
–Nadine Strossen

We welcome applications from academics, graduate students, and others.