Can universities be reformed from within, or must reform come from outside agents? With Federal and state governments now actively seeking to reform our universities from the outside, this question has become urgent. Indeed, it may be the most important question facing our universities today.

I don’t aim to settle the debate between “insiders” and “outsiders” here. Instead, I want to clarify its complexity and sketch some of the patterns at play. Think of this as table-setting: laying out the tools for conversations yet to come.

At a broad level, HxA’s position is straightforward. We practice what we preach about viewpoint diversity, making room for members holding a range of views about the respective roles of “inside” and “outside” reformers.

At one end are HxA members who are convinced that universities must heal themselves, with deep and lasting reform accomplished solely by the work of insiders. At the other end are HxA members who doubt the will or ability of universities to reform themselves, and so welcome the outside pressure or “exogenous shock” of government intervention, so long as those governmental actions respect liberal constitutional principles.

What unites HxA’s thousands of (diverse!) members, though, is the conviction that insider reforms are essential to building the culture of open inquiry we seek. Outsiders may accelerate or impede the changes we seek, or they may do some of both. But insiders are the necessary condition for the reforms to take root and endure.

To see why, we must look more carefully at who is “inside” and “outside.” As we do this, we find that the university system, and the social structures in which universities reside, are not only complex but dynamic systems.

Insiders are those who work directly on campuses, or who have direct fiduciary responsibilities for them. The central players here are presidents and administrators, faculty, students, and trustees. Disciplinary associations are populated by faculty and count as insiders for that reason. National faculty advocacy organizations such as the AAUP, the National Association of Scholars, and, of course, Heterodox Academy in some ways straddle the inside/outside divide, but are essentially “insiders” too.

Outsiders are those whose authority, interests, or influence come from outside the campus gates. Most notably, this group includes government agents at every level and branch. But there are many other “outsider” groups, including accreditation agencies, donors, foundations, and even foreign governments. There are also advocacy-based non-profits such as FIRE, ACTA, and the Constructive Dialogue Institute; as well as media outfits that influence campus culture. Alumni, as individuals and as members of associations such as the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, straddle the inside/outside divide, but by my definition count as “outsiders” too.

Even this sketch shows how complex and porous the boundary is between the teams. But even if we accept this broad, two-team grouping, complexity increases. Insiders and outsiders alike operate not only as individuals but as members of subgroups. Faculty within departments; legislatures within parties. Tenure and turnover matter too. Students cycle in every four years, while faculty (like Supreme Court justices) hold their positions for life or until retirement. Crucially, across both teams and within the various subgroups, peoples’ attitudes toward open inquiry vary, from firm support, to rival commitments (e.g., social justice, nationalism), to indifference. And these attitudes towards open inquiry are not fixed but are constantly shifting over time: the system is dynamic.

This dynamic complexity does not mean reform is impossible. Dynamic systems are fully capable of reorienting their cultures. But the fact of dynamic complexity means that reforms will constantly be contested. No one is sheltered from the storm. Each of us must choose how to act within it.

If we hope to see our campuses affirm values like free expression, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement woven deeply into the cultural fabric of our campuses, we need more than fleeting pushes (or punches) from the outside. Our universities must have an organized group of long-term, respected campus insiders who love their institutions and understand how they work, who are skilled in the arts of persuasion (and, when necessary, of campus politics), and who can for these reasons help push through and anchor lasting cultural change. And when university and college presidents seek to foster a culture of open inquiry on their campus—as so many campus leaders are now doing—insiders are the cadre of principled allies they most need. That is why Heterodox Academy exists.

And it is why I am so grateful to all of our members, especially at this moment of upheaval and possibility. Members’ work and participation in HxA’s mission sustains the insider force without which reforms cannot endure. It is an honor to be riding this storm, and directing its energy towards the construction of something beautiful.