Last April, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater interim chancellor Jim Henderson resigned abruptly, in part because of his objection to the manner in which System campuses were being mandated to conduct a "free speech" survey that he and other chancellors objected to. Initially, then UW System interim President Michael Falbo agreed with the chancellors and halted system participation in the survey. For reasons that are not completely clear, Falbo changed course and once again communicated to the chancellors that the survey would go on. According to Henderson, "That discussion focused more on the political fallout of not doing the survey rather than the merits of doing it."
Henderson's resignation succeeded in placing the survey on the radar of system faculty, staff, and students. At that time Matt King and I interviewed first amendment scholar Chris Terry, who explained numerous problems with the survey including vague questions and the real possibility of participants' identity being compromised.
Many others expressed similar concerns, leading the UW Stout Menard Center for the Study of Institutions and Innovation to go back to the drawing board and revise the survey based on feedback received.
Well, the survey is now back, and I regret to say that--at least based on the draft I have seen--it actually seems worse. To be clear: I have no interest in questioning the motives of the researchers, and I take them at their word that they are only interested in gathering data that can better inform discussions about possible changes to UW policies on free speech and expression. If the five researchers behind the study were motivated by politics or were being exploited by Republican politicians in search of data to continue their long standing vendetta against the UW, then it would be the job of each campus' Institutional Review Board (IRB) to call that out. So far the IRBs have not done that.
Here are my main concerns:
1. The Menard Center is funded by the Koch and Menard families, both major Republican donors. Financial support from corporate interests does not necessarily undermine academic research, but in the interests of full transparency the survey instrument should let student participants know more about the funding sources of the Menard Center.
2. A large number of the questions are very difficult to comprehend. I have been teaching a class on the First Amendment and Free Speech for more than 20 years, and yet the majority of survey questions puzzle ME. Here's an example:
"How much do you feel that people who express political views you find offensive are causing harm to those they offend." The answers that participants can select are:
- Not at all
- A little
- Somewhat
- Quite a bit
- A great deal
Because we have no idea what kind of situation the survey writers have in mind, the only possible answer for such a question is "it depends." A survey participant might think that a group of men yelling "The Jews will not replace us" as they march across campus is quite harmful to the entire campus community. That same participant might be offended by someone carrying a "Re-Elect Ron Johnson sign" on campus, but not see it as harmful as much as irritating. We can imagine literally thousands of scenarios that would change the way a person thinks about the question. So do they answer "A little"? "Somewhat"?
3. The survey seems to discourage critical thinking about free speech controversies. Take this question, for example: "If some students feel that certain views expressed on campus cause harm to certain groups of people, what do you think university administrators should do?" The responses are:
- They should ban the expression of those views.
- They should allow the expression of those views.
The only rational response to a question like that is "I'm not sure." What views are we talking about? Holocaust Denial? 9/11 Conspiracies? #Blacklivesmatter? #Metoo? Where are the views expressed? In the classroom? In assigned materials for a course? At an event sponsored by a recognized student organization? In a private meeting room among like-minded students? What CAN the administrators do based on UW policies and court precedents involving student speech? The question is asking for a black/white response on something that is inherently gray. A critical thinker expects the administrators to wade through the gray area and arrive at a rational decision based on the facts and the law, but that response is not allowed.
4. The survey includes a somewhat bizarre section which the researchers claim is designed to "gauge students' engagement in free expression behaviors and their perceptions of experiencing negative consequences for engaging in such behaviors." Here is a sample question:
"Since you have been a student at your current university, have you ever disagreed out loud with one of your instructors about a controversial topic?" If yes, "Did you receive any negative institutional consequences, such as being reported, suspended, or expelled, for disagreeing out loud with one of your instructors about a controversial topic?" Yes No
This section of the survey almost seems to invite explosive headlines: "UW students report being suspended and expelled for disagreeing with instructors." What's likely to occur is that the number of students claiming to be reported, suspended, or expelled for expressing disagreement will far outnumber actual reports. Thus, the survey is in effect inviting students to take what might be unfair, cheap shots at instructors. It's kind of like a "ratemyprofessor.com" approach to survey research.
Even worse, this survey allows anyone who HAS been disciplined for harassing or threatening communication to rebrand himself or herself as some kind of free speech champion.
5. Regardless of what the researchers tell us, I am not convinced that the anonymity of the respondents will be protected. The survey asks for gender identity, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference, political party identification, and political leaning. Even if no individual names will be reported out, surveys like this invite gross generalizations about entire groups based on their responses to questions that lack specifics. We will end up with conclusions like this: "White, male, conservative, Protestant Republicans do not believe that offensive views are harmful while Black, female, liberal, Protestant Democrats do."
6. Rather than help to shed light on the "culture war," this survey places the University of Wisconsin IN the war. Almost all the questions feed into the narrative of campus conservatives being censored or cancelled by the "woke" mob of professors and liberal students. At a time when System schools are facing enrollment crises, mental health challenges, difficult budgets, and failing to retain quality faculty and staff, the UW will somehow give prominence to a survey that will inevitably reinforce Wisconsin's legislative Republican fantasies about campus free speech.
Please do not misunderstand. I DO believe that investigating the state of the first amendment on college campuses is important and valuable. The issue is what is the best way to investigate it. My suggestion is for the System President to put the brakes on the Menard Center survey. Then, the Board of Regents should recruit a team of actual first amendment scholars to perform a "Free Speech Audit" of the UW System. My preference would be for the scholars to be from outside of Wisconsin so that they are not as easily subject to pressure from the bad faith actors running the current state legislature.
As part of the Free Speech Audit, the team would hold forums on each campus for the purpose of giving students an open forum to speak out about their free speech concerns. That would actually accomplish what the Menard Center researchers say they want: civil discussion on the campuses about topics that matter.
