The anti-free speech movement in the United States was largely an outgrowth of higher education where viewpoint intolerance has taken hold of many schools. Indeed, intolerance and orthodoxy are often defended on the left in the name of tolerance and pluralism. Harvard Professor Timothy McCarthy is one of those voices demanding the removal of faculty with opposing views in the name of tolerance. He recently told New York University’s Washington Square News that any faculty who do not support “gender-affirming care” should be stripped of their academic titles and fired.
Many academics and citizens oppose “gender-affirming” policies on religious or other grounds. Some believe that school-enforced policies inhibit debate over gender dysphoria and the basis for various treatments and protections on both sides. McCarthy believes that no such debate should be allowed among faculty, declaring that “there’s a particular place in hell for academics who use their academic expertise and power to distort and do violence to people in the world.” He was targeting two professors at NYU who are affiliated with groups critical of surgical and chemical interventions for gender dysphoria.
Professor McCarthy offered the usual nod to free speech and academic freedom before eviscerating both in his comments. He admitted that “a level of suspicion and inquiry into medical practices is healthy,” but then dismissed such views as harmful and mere efforts to “poison the waters.”
There was a time when such intolerance was directed against the left and groups ranging from feminists to those in the LGBT community. Now, it has become a badge of honor, the expected bona fides that show the correctness and firmness of one’s views.
The irony is crushing. Harvard’s Kennedy School website states that McCarthy “was the first openly gay faculty member” at the public policy school “and still teaches the school’s only course on LGBTQ matters.” When I first went into teaching, I had friends who still remained in the closet out of fear that their sexual orientation would undermine their chances for tenure or advancement. Likewise, far-left academics associated with the critical legal studies (CLS) movement were viewed as “poisoning the waters” of higher education and rightfully blocked from teaching.
The left has now adopted the same intolerance and orthodoxy once used against it. Indeed, it has been far more successful in purging the faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters. As we have previously discussed, Harvard is particularly notorious for this purging of both its faculty and student body.
This year, Harvard again found itself dead last among 251 universities and colleges in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) annual ranking.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So, Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.
According to the last student survey, only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Notably, despite Harvard’s maintenance of an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal students feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.
Professor McCarthy appears right at home in his public call for a further purging of faculty ranks.
This is an area that has deeply divided the country, as was evident in the last election. Higher education should play a critical role in that debate by allowing faculty and students to engage with each other in civil and substantive debate. Instead of spending so much time and effort trying to silence those with opposing views, the left could instead focus on refuting these claims. Instead, it is replicating that same pattern of cancellations, deplatformings and firings that marked the last decade. It is the same approach used against academics who questioned aspects of COVID policies including mask efficacy doubts, natural immunity theories, opposition to the closing of schools, opposition to the six-foot rule, and the lab theory on the virus’s origin. They were also removed from faculties and associations. Yet, many of these views have since been vindicated.
What was lost was not just free speech and academic freedom, but a rigorous debate that might have helped us avoid some of the costs of unsupported COVID policies. For example, some of our closest allies listened to skeptics on the need to close schools and opted to keep young children in school. They were able to avoid the massive educational and psychological costs that we incurred in this country. Much like Professor McCarthy, these skeptics were accused of “poisoning the waters” and spreading harmful ideas or disinformation.
There is no difference between the intolerance of figures like Professor McCarthy from those who once sought the same measures against liberals, homosexuals, or feminists. Now firmly in control of higher education, many on the left are using their power to win public debate through retribution, coercion, and attrition. In the process, they are destroying the very essense of higher education for not just our students but ourselves.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
