When conservatives talk about the lack of viewpoint diversity within American academia, they’re often referring to the heavy skew among the professoriate in terms of political affiliation. As Jennifer Schuessler noted in a recent column for the New York Times, for some who are right of center, “viewpoint diversity boils down to one thing: the need for more conservatives on syllabuses, in the classroom and, perhaps most importantly, on the faculty.”

This approach of “add Republicans and stir” would certainly change the make-up of many departments in terms of partisan leanings. But it reminds me of the mid-1990s when I was a young assistant professor at Michigan State University’s residential science program and we attempted “add black students and stir” without any concomitant moves to consider why black students hadn’t been seeking out our program in larger numbers. There was no examination of what had been causing and perpetuating our insularity—which meant there was also no adjustment made to create an environment that might be more supportive of racial diversity. It didn’t go well.

Thirty years later, in a small effort to help improve the culture of academia for faculty, this Wednesday evening I cooked up some stuffed mushrooms and coconut macaroons. I volunteered to host a gathering of Michigan State University’s new HxA Campus Community—HxA just welcomed MSU along with 23 other new Campus Communities to our change-makers network—and so we met on my back porch for drinks and small plates. The group talked about what brought each of them to the point of joining HxA and came up with ideas for future activities.

As I washed up afterwards, I was struck by the thought that I’ve known some of these folks for years, yet I never knew that, like me, they were feeling so tired of the climate of censorship, self-censorship, ideological surveillance, policing of ideas, and university branding. While some of these folks are right-of-center, and many are (like me) pretty typical left-of-center academics, all of us understood the system isn't working. It doesn't take a Democrat coming into contact with a Republican to see this.

One reason I took the job at Heterodox Academy is because the work we’re trying to achieve isn’t simple. It isn’t “diversify and stir.” What we’re trying to do is create a better academic culture, one that foments and celebrates open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement with the ultimate aim of making research, teaching, and service to humanity better. We seek a culture that works to nurture everybody’s minds.

And it’s worth nothing that, while reaching more political diversity among the faculty ranks would presumably increase viewpoint diversity in fields where politics matter, it’s not the case that increasing diversity automatically creates a better environment for open inquiry and constructive disagreement. This became clear to me listening to the remarks of our recent panel of three faculty members at women’s colleges. Kathryn Lynch of Wellesley College explained how single-sex colleges can provide women students extraordinary opportunities to spread their intellectual wings and fly in ways they just can’t in co-ed environments. In fact, Lynch made the case that, given the hardships faced by young men, we ought to have more men’s colleges to allow men the freedoms that may come with a single-sex undergraduate education.

As women’s colleges (and religious colleges) show, increasing diversity isn’t necessarily the way to achieve the optimum campus culture for all researchers and learners. And, just as we can’t expect the simple addition of black people to make an undergraduate science culture less problematically insular, we can’t expect a few added Republicans to somehow change our broken systems on campuses nationwide. They’re not magicians.

In any case, leaning too hard into partisanship as a “solution” feels likely to just get us more frustrating partisanship, not the opening of minds. We ought to have basic, shared values in academia regardless of political affiliation. The best professors, however they vote, don’t want their students to know how they vote. They want their students to leave their classes more capable of solid research, critical thinking, and constructive communication. More capable of productively arguing with their professors.

Again, here my job at HxA sometimes feels so different from the saddest segments of academia—the corners where a few faculty seem to be using students as a means to a political end. At HxA, the staff is really dedicated to nonpartisanship, to pushing values like academic freedom and (hopefully informed, hopefully humble) freedom of expression for all.

So it is that this week we objected to the University of Pennsylvania’s decision to suspend Professor Amy Wax at half-pay, despite lack of any evidence that she did what the administration claimed—“created an unequal learning environment” and “breach[ed]...the confidentiality of student grades.” It appears Penn’s move centers on Wax’s unpopular views and choice of class speakers, all of which would fall within the bounds of academic freedom.

Although the legislative drafting occurred well before Wax’s punishment, concerns about uber-progressive students trying to cancel conservative professors and speakers is pretty clearly part of what motivated the Republican-sponsored “End Woke Higher Education Act,” which passed the House last week on a vote of 213-201. This week, besides helping with our analysis of what happened to Wax, our Director of Policy Joe Cohn also provided a masterful deep dive into the bill.

Get past the inflammatory name and you’ll see it’s legislation even Democrats ought to be taking seriously, because, as Joe explains in his fine-grained analysis, it includes some sensible ideas about how to prevent faculty and students from being coerced into showing allegiance to particular ideologies. While the bill is not likely to advance this term, just seeing the bill explicitly recommend that universities and colleges adopt the Chicago Principles feels like a big step forward.

On Wednesday, Joe provided a pop-up live Q&A on the bill, where our members and our Director of Member & Campus Engagement Martha McCaughey asked great questions, including about what the bill misses in terms of academic freedom protections. Watch the recording here.

Joe will keep leading our staff and members in his careful analyses of legislation that advances or cuts against what we value. It’s just part of what we do at HxA to try to help you, on your own campus, work towards a more ideal academic culture.

Before I sign off for this week, a shout out to the University of Chicago for landing a $100 million anonymous donation for its relatively new Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression. I’m pleased to see the forum’s fellowships will be aimed at junior scholars! If we really want culture change, it’s going to have to involve the young ‘uns.

And don’t forget that the call for proposals for our 2025 conference—on the theme of Truth, Power, and Responsibility—is now open. I hope to be seeing many of you in New York next June as we convene the change-makers thoughtfully looking to construct a better, humbler, smarter, more intellectually generous, more tolerant higher ed.

Catch you here next week.