The Review: Stanford Plans a Conference on Academic Freedom. Our Reporter Isn't Allowed In.

Plus: A thrilling story about weapons research. ADVERTISEMENT [The Review Logo]( Did someone forward you this newsletter? [Sign up free]( to receive your own copy. When The Chronicle’s Stephanie M. Lee learned about a two-day [conference]( in the beginning of November hosted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business on the topic of “academic freedom,” naturally she hoped to attend. The roster of speakers is a who’s-who of provocative and sometimes controversial thinkers on higher education, as well as luminaries in the free-speech-advocacy sector, and the keynote speaker is slated to be Peter Thiel. But when Lee asked for a press pass, she was [told]( by the organizers that “we are not inviting the media to our conference in order to foment a more open discussion.” The irony of a closed conference on academic freedom delighted academic Twitter, and the awkward solecism “foment” was a grace note. But the basic point is not illogical; of course certain kinds of free conversation are possible in private that are not in public. The question is whether academic speech — speech reflecting the core functions of the university — ought ever to be private in this way. Why should a gigantic university be in the business of sponsoring essentially private events? What do the canons of academic freedom suggest about this closed conference on academic freedom? I am convinced they disallow it in principle. In a general way, the Millian premise on which academic freedom rests — that truth is more likely to be achieved via the unfettered interaction of contesting viewpoints — suggests that a closed conference cannot meet academic freedom’s intrinsic demands. More specifically, universities have adjudicated against secretive research agendas in the past. At issue was not debate over dangerous ideas but research into dangerous substances: chemical and biological agents of war, for use in the American invasion of Vietnam. I first learned about this fascinating history from Steven P. Grant, a student at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, who has become an expert on the topic. He pointed me to a 1986 [article]( by Jonathan Goldstein that reads like a thriller. In 1965, a UPenn student named Robin Maisel, who worked for the college bookstore, noticed something funny while delivering books: Penn’s Institute for Cooperative Research seemed implausibly impregnable. As Goldstein writes, its “barred doors and combination-lock file cabinets ... were unusual even for security-minded West Philadelphians.” Maisel started digging into the institute’s book orders and discovered a surprising interest in “crop diseases and Vietnamese politics.” He alerted an antiwar history professor, Gabriel Kolko, who helped force a series of revelations about covert research into chemical warfare funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and carried out by Penn faculty members. Initially, the administration hoped to defend its work with the DoD on the grounds that, as Goldstein summarizes, “to deprive a faculty member of the right to choose his research meant violating his academic freedom, which could be defined as the right to study anything.” The gambit didn’t work — the story was a scandal for Penn, which eventually had to cancel its defense contracts — but it did occasion some important formal clarifications about what academic freedom means, at least at Penn. The Faculty Senate resolved “that scholars could study anything but the results had to be publishable in the open scholarly literature, not only as classified documents.” In other words, Penn scientists could still explore biological and chemical warfare if they’d like to — but they’d have to do it in public. Many university scientists, of course, continue to collaborate with the Defense Department, and policies differ greatly from institution to institution. But as the headline of a 2013 Baltimore Sun article — “[Universities]( an]( Academ]( Freedom]( Classi]( Work]( — makes clear, such secrecy is understood now not as a prerogative of academic freedom but as in tension with it, although sometimes justified by competing values, like national security. As Cary Nelson, a former president of the American Association of University Professors, told the Sun, “It’s kind of a fundamental belief in American higher education that research is designed to be shared, it’s designed to be disseminated. When you start crossing a line and decide, ‘Well, I’ll hide this and keep that secret,’ the whole fabric begins to unravel.” What could justify the unraveling of that fabric in the case of Stanford’s academic-freedom conference? It’s worth noting that participants were not aware when invited that the conference would be secret, and at least one of them, Nadine Strossen, told me she has written to the organizers to “argue in favor of openness.” When I asked Jonathan Haidt, a speaker at the conference, what he thought of the media ban, he distinguished between two possible goals: “If the goal includes bringing a set of ideas and discussions out to a wide audience, which is usually the case for academic conferences, then the press should be allowed, and this is the default for academic conferences. But if the goal is to help the attendees at the conference understand a problem, and that requires them to speak freely, at a time when there can be enormous social and career consequences for questioning certain ideas, then I think it makes sense to have a conference where only participants are allowed — no press.” This is not persuasive. All academic research is meant to help researchers understand a problem — but the criterion of transparency is in place precisely because the problems themselves are held in common both by scholars in general and by the public. Academic freedom, the subject of the conference, is a contract between public and professor, and that contract is violated when the core work of the scholar is kept secret from either other scholars or from the public. Transparency is of course not a requirement in every area of academic life. No one thinks all personnel meetings, just because they happen to involve college faculty members, need to be public. But transparency is, by definition and in every case, a requirement of the properly academic side of academic life: research and disputation about ideas. If the participants wanted to sharpen their minds in private, they could have had a dinner party. A conference on academic freedom to which the uninvited are unfree to attend is a parody. ADVERTISEMENT SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHRONICLE Enjoying the newsletter? [Subscribe today]( for unlimited access to essential news, analysis, and advice. The Latest THE REVIEW | OPINION [The Right-Wing Attempt to Control Higher Ed]( By Brendan Cantwell and Barrett J. Taylor [STORY IMAGE]( Demolishing independent expertise is a central goal of the Republican Party. ADVERTISEMENT THE REVIEW | ESSAY [Do Administrators Think They’re Spiritual Healers?]( By Blake Smith [STORY IMAGE]( Ex cathedra statements on current events from admins are just ... weird. THE REVIEW | OPINION [A Free-Speech Scandal at Berkeley Law]( By Steven Lubet [STORY IMAGE]( Nine student groups want to ban supporters of Israel from speaking. That’s wrong. THE REVIEW | OPINION [Student-Loan Debt Is a Crisis for Black Borrowers]( By Jason Houle and Fenaba Addo [STORY IMAGE]( Racial disparities in student debt are at an all-time high. THE REVIEW | ESSAY [The 50-Year War on Higher Education]( By Ellen Schrecker [STORY IMAGE]( To understand today’s political battles, you need to know how they began. Recommended - “One former Guggenheim colleague told me that she thought about what happened to Spector every day — but that she was too afraid for her future career to speak on the record.” In The Atlantic, Helen Lewis [writes about]( a case of scapegoating in the art world. - “None of that mattered, and none of it mattered to AG. When push came to shove at the end, he set me on fire and threw me in the garbage and used my reverence for the institution against me.” That’s the opinion editor James Bennet on being fired from the New York Times, [as quoted by Ben Smith]( in Semafor. - “Given his explicit endorsement of esotericism — and his hard-line stance on the Forced Organ Donation hypothetical — the conclusion that Singer is feigning moderation for the greater good isn’t merely probable. It is all but certain.” In his Substack newsletter, Bryan Caplan [suggests]( that the philosopher Peter Singer is systematically dishonest about his views. - “Perhaps because he never took himself too seriously, Latour seemed condemned to court confusion wherever he went.” In n+1, Ava Kofman [reflects]( on the life and thought of Bruno Latour, who died this month at age 75. Write to me at len.gutkin@chronicle.com. Yours, Len Gutkin FROM THE CHRONICLE STORE [Diverse Leadership for a New Era - The Chronicle Store]( [Diverse Leadership for a New Era]( Diversity in leadership can help support colleges’ mission as enrollments of low-income and minority students increase. [Order your copy today]( to explore whether colleges are meeting goals they set following the 2020 racial justice movement and implementing best practices to recruit and support an inclusive administration. NEWSLETTER FEEDBACK [Please let us know what you thought of today's newsletter in this three-question survey](. This newsletter was sent to {EMAIL}. [Read this newsletter on the web](. [Manage]( your newsletter preferences, [stop receiving]( this email, or [view]( our privacy policy. © 2022 [The Chronicle of Higher Education]( 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037