• Mission-related: All blog submissions should explicitly draw connections to elements of HxA’s mission, (particularly open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and/or constructive disagreement within educational institutions).
• Structure and argument: Articles should capture the reader’s attention immediately. State your case up front. Every paragraph should have a concrete point, tightly related to the overall argument. 
• Evidence: Submissions should include rigorous citations with evidence appropriate to disciplinary context. 
• Style: Refer to AP Style Guide.
• Word count: 750–2000 words.
• Original content: Except in special circumstances, we do not accept essays that have been previously published or are under review elsewhere.

While we are happy to consider any essay that advances our mission, complies with our guidelines, and would be of interest to our readers, we are particularly eager for the following types of submissions (For in-depth information about each genre, see our expanded genre section below):

• Book Summaries
• Heterodox Dialogues
• Heterodox Pedagogy
• Longform Essays (opinion pieces) 
• Research Summaries

Contributors have published pieces on a variety of topics including: campus and community, diversity, history of heterodoxy, identity politics, the purpose of the university, religious ideology, and political ideology.

We invite you to think through challenges to heterodox thinking wherever they appear in education and propose solutions.

All submissions are subject to review by our editorial team.

Use this form to submit your blog for consideration. Complete all the fields, and upload your article as a word document with your last name in the file name.

We will reply to all submissions via email within two weeks; however, due to the volume of submissions or holidays, this is not always possible.

Authors will receive one of four responses from the editorial team: Accept; accept with change; revise and resubmit; or reject.

In most cases, authors will not be asked to complete more than one revision round unless the editorial team has agreed to move toward publication.

Our revisions primarily focus on clarifying key points, streamlining arguments, improving flow and quality of writing, adapting to AP style guidelines, connecting the essay to the mission of HxA, etc.

Usually, the editorial team’s decision to reject a submission is due to one of the following reasons: 

• The content fails to comply with our standards and guidelines and/or does not follow the HxA Way.
• The content does not relate to Heterodox Academy’s core mission.
• The content is not a novel contribution (i.e., it is redundant to content previously published on heterodox: the blog).
• The submission was previously published elsewhere.

OVERVIEW

Entries in this genre should draw the reader’s attention to key books addressing challenges HxA seeks to address, including problems with research and pedagogy in higher education and K-12; changing social and institutional dynamics related to intellectual exchange and expression; bridging political, moral, and other differences; and the evolving relationship between institutions of higher learning and the societies in which they are embedded.

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES

“Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth” by Musa al-Gharbi 

“Heterodox Academicians, Make Madison Your Model” by Jonathan Rauch

“The Coddling of the American Mind” by Sean Stevens

 “Why Free Speech?” by Jonathan Zimmerman

CONTENT

The goal of a Book Summary is to highlight exemplary books related to HxA’s mission.

This is generally not a space to critique others’ work; however, we occasionally make exceptions for particularly important books that have generated a lot of public interest.

Summaries can be written by the author, though this is not required.

STRUCTURE

Briefly describe the problem or phenomenon the book sets out to explore, along with the author’s methods and conclusions. 

Explain how the summarized book relates to the sorts of problems Heterodox Academy is trying to address (i.e., “Why should the reader care?”).

STYLE

Keep in mind, the goal is to distill key ideas for a non-specialized audience, and/or for scholars outside of the author’s field.

Limit the use of technical terms or jargon, and provide brief explanations of any specialized language or acronyms.

Concision is critical.

OVERVIEW

The Heterodox Dialogues series models constructive disagreement among authors who hold opposing or conflicting views on topics. Through a series of essays, authors refine their perspectives, find constructive compromises, and offer new solutions. All exchanges in the series are expected to follow the standards of the “HxA Way.”

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE

“School Choice and Viewpoint Diversity: Competing Visions” Part 1; Part 2

CONTENT

Authors must propose the topic on which they want to debate and send a brief proposal (200 words) to blog@heterodoxacademy.org. You can either request to be matched with someone who holds an opposing perspective on the topic or cc: your desired interlocutor on the email pitch. 

Topics must be relevant to HxA’s mission.

STRUCTURE

1. Author 1: The first essay should be 1000-1250 words and should frame the topic in its historical and disciplinary context; offer a perspective on the issue based on evidence and clear argumentation, and acknowledge and address opposing perspectives.
2. Author 2: The initial response essay should be 1000-1250 words and should acknowledge and address the perspective of the author of essay one; offer a perspective on the issue based on evidence and clear argumentation; and acknowledge limitations and clarify your position with your interlocutor.
3. Authors 1 and 2: The additional responses (no more than two per author) should be 500-750 words and should acknowledge and address the perspective of your interlocutor; clarify, expand on, and refine your perspective on the issue based on evidence and clear argumentation; and acknowledge limitations and clarify your position with your interlocutor.

OVERVIEW
Entries in this genre can share challenges and successful, tested approaches to promoting viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding, open inquiry, and constructive disagreement in the classroom, laboratory, or in mentoring. We seek concrete action and tangible changes in the classroom and beyond from teachers, professors, and administrators who have striven to put our commitments into practice. 

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES

“To Tease Out Heterogeneity and Combat Polarization, Make Some Topics *More* Controversial” by Musa al-Gharbi

“Teaching Religious Text in a Culturally Heterogeneous Classroom” by Uri Bilmes

“Don’t Dismiss Debate” by Meg Mott

CONTENT
Submissions can focus on: 

Concrete steps taken to improve teaching, the classroom environment, and/or student learning as aligned with HxA’s mission.

Practitioner strategies for more fruitfully engaging students in wider perspectives or adversarial collaborators.

Department or school policies that support instructors teaching with constructive disagreement and open inquiry. 

Professional development strategies for encouraging and improving instructor courage in the classroom.

STRUCTURE

Describe the technique or idea and its pedagogical purpose (i.e., “In order to help students understand ____, I ask them to ____”). 

Detail how a technique is implemented, how (if) and why it works, and any advice you may have for others who may want to try this strategy.

STYLE

Where possible, include citations that contextualize your piece within broader teaching practice. 

Concision is critical.

OVERVIEW
Entries in this genre should be opinion pieces that are academically rigorous and amply evidenced, and that explore an idea or argument relevant to education and HxA. Typically they take up an intellectual idea or premise, address its strengths and weaknesses, and propose actionable responses for readers to consider. These essays also often include historical exploration and analysis.

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES

“Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice” by Jonathan Haidt

“Callosal Failure: One Hundred Years of Viewpoint Diversity Activism” by Musa al-Gharbi

“On the Authority of Experience in Black Thought” by Randall Kennedy

CONTENT

Submissions might focus on:

Current events and debates in higher education and/or K-12 and original proposals for addressing or resolving them.

Classic educational concerns enriched with new approaches or insights relevant to HxA’s mission.

Historical case studies that model effective strategies for today, or where our understanding of the world was improved by those who bucked the prevailing orthodoxy.

The relationships between institutions of higher learning or K-12, the communities they are embedded in, and the constituencies they serve (or fail to serve).

Rigorous and constructive responses to recently published pieces in our blog or another journal.

STRUCTURE 

Essays should clearly stake out their topic, claims, and purpose in the opening paragraphs.

Essays should be solutions-oriented, ending with actionable suggestions and proposals.

Consider using headers to mark off the topics of essay sub-sections.

Paragraphs should be focused and not overly long.

STYLE

Where possible, include citations that contextualize your piece within broader conversations, studies, and/or practices. 

Limit the use of technical terms or jargon, and provide brief explanations of any specialized language or acronyms.

Concision is critical.

OVERVIEW
Entries in this genre should draw the reader’s attention to key studies and empirical findings related to the challenges HxA seeks to address, including problems with research and pedagogy; changing social and institutional dynamics related to intellectual exchange and expression; bridging political, moral, and other differences; and the evolving relationship between institutions of higher learning or K-12 and the societies in which they are embedded.

Summaries of work analyzing the causes, scope, significance, and/or trends of these phenomena are welcome. We are particularly keen for studies that focus on and/or test possible solutions. 

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES

“The Skeptics are Wrong Part 1: Attitudes About Free Speech On Campus are Changing” by Sean Stevens

“Few Academics Support Cancel Culture” by Eric Kaufman

“​​Faith Commitments Fuel Dialogue Across Differences” by Emily G. Wenneborg 

“Academic Inequities: Nontenured Faculty Punished More Harshly For Controversial Speech” by Jordan Howell

CONTENT

Submissions in this genre can focus on one particular study that another researcher has published; focus on an author’s own original published findings; or put multiple published studies into conversation to arrive at a deeper understanding.

This is generally not a space to critique others’ work; however, we occasionally make exceptions for particularly important research that has generated a lot of public interest.

STRUCTURE

Briefly describe the problem or phenomenon the study is trying to explore, along with its methods and key findings.

Explain how the research relates to the challenges Heterodox Academy is trying to address (i.e., “Why should the reader care?”).

STYLE

Keep in mind, the goal is to distill research findings for a non-specialized audience and/or for scholars outside of the author’s field. 

Limit the use of technical terms or jargon, and provide brief explanations of any specialized language or acronyms.

Concision is critical. 

Graphs and charts are welcome.

As a 501c3, Heterodox Academy is legally forbidden from advocating for or against any particular political candidate, political party, legislation, or ballot initiative. Although individual contributors speaking for and as themselves, are not necessarily bound by these restrictions, we are nonetheless generally averse to publishing content that could jeopardize our 501c3 status.

As a non-profit, we are committed to providing all of our tools, resources, and content to as many people as possible at little-to-no cost. All of our blog content falls under a Creative Commons license (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivatives 4.0 International), allowing it to be syndicated for free, at will, without asking permission from HxA. 

To publish with Heterodox Academy is to consent to your work being freely utilized within the confines of our syndication restrictions and guidelines.