Heterodox Academy is comprised of more than 3k members, who hail from a range of demographic backgrounds and academic disciplines, holding various institutional roles (different professorial ranks, different administrative positions, graduate students at various stages) at institutions all over the United States and beyond. As would be expected from such a heterogenous network, our members hold a range of views about virtually any topic up for discussion. As an organization, we prize pluralism and we value this disagreement.
However, we do not promote viewpoint diversity for its own sake. Our primary goal is to improve research and teaching at colleges and universities. We recognize that institutions of higher learning are not ‘public squares’ in the traditional sense, but rather sites for the production and dissemination of knowledge. To facilitate these objectives, we embrace a particular set of norms and values, which we have taken to calling the ‘HxA Way.’ We encourage our members to embody these in all of their professional interactions. We insist upon these norms and values for those publishing on our platforms or participating in our events:
Make your case with evidence. Link to that evidence whenever possible (for online publications, on social media), or describe it when you can’t (such as in talks or conversations). Any specific statistics, quotes or novel facts should have ready citations from credible sources.
Be intellectually charitable. Viewpoint diversity is not incompatible with moral or intellectual rigor – indeed, it is supposed to sharpen these! However, one should always try to engage with the strongest form of a position one disagrees with (that is, ‘steel-man’ opponents rather than ‘straw-manning’ them). One should be able to describe their interlocutor’s position in a manner they would, themselves, agree with (see: ‘Ideological Turing Test’). Try to acknowledge, when possible, the respects in which the actor or idea you are criticizing may be right–- be it in part or in full. Look for reasons why the beliefs others hold may be compelling, under the assumption that others are roughly as reasonable, informed and intelligent as oneself.
Be Intellectually humble. Take seriously the prospect that you may be wrong. Be genuinely open to changing your mind about an issue if this is what is expected of interlocutors (although the purpose of exchanges across difference need not always be to ‘convert’ someone, as explained here). Acknowledge the limitations to one’s own arguments and data as relevant.
Be constructive. The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole when describing perceived problems or (especially) one’s adversaries — for instance, do not analogize people to Stalin, Hitler/ the Nazis, Mao, the antagonists of 1984, etc.
Be yourself. At Heterodox Academy, we believe that successfully changing unfortunate dynamics in any complex system or institution will require people to stand up — to leverage, and indeed stake, their social capital on holding the line, pushing back against adverse trends and leading by example. This not only has an immediate and local impact, it also helps spread awareness, provides models for others to follow and creates permission for others to stand up as well. This is why Heterodox Academy does not allow for anonymous membership; membership is a meaningful commitment precisely because it is public.
Nor do we allow for anonymous or pseudonymous blog posts: attaching one’s name and reputation to an argument or idea is an important ‘skin in the game’ test. People stake out all sorts of extreme, non-constructive, irresponsible and ill-considered positions behind the veils of anonymity or collectivity. However, if one is unwilling to stand behind and defend a given position speaking exclusively as oneself, this is probably a sign of some weakness in that position. In any case, HxA refuses to host such content on our platforms. We believe that our mission is best served by encouraging people to stand up for what they believe in, in a constructive fashion, in the social contexts in which they are embedded, speaking for and as themselves.