By Dr. Robert A. Scott

A university or college is by mission an intellectually restive place probing ideas that are challenging and disruptive. It is a place that puts a premium on science and evidence, even when long-held beliefs and options are challenged.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual these days to hear pundits and politicians claim that college faculty members are imposing their political views on students and that students are not exposed to diverse viewpoints. We often hear and read such comments when an appearance by a right-wing provocateur evokes protests by those opposed to his remarks ridiculing Islam, feminism and social justice movements.

Another conservative speaker who provokes protests is best known for his complaints about teaching the history of racism, slavery, and colonialism.

When students and others protest such speakers, counter protesters complain of a “cancel culture” atmosphere on campus that limits the right to speak. These counter protesters complain that such speakers are being denied their freedom of speech.

But no one has denied their right to speak. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that a speaker will be paid by student fees to negate – cancel – the lessons of history.

Must students be silent when a group on campus engages a Holocaust denier as speaker? Must students be silent when a group wants to use student tuition and fee money to hire someone who denies the legacies of slavery and lynching in America?

In my experience as a university president for 30 years at two institutions, such incidents are few in number.

Yes, campuses through classroom instruction and administrative policies have tried to promote social justice, i.e., the ethical treatment of all people. And they have tried to develop programs to expose discriminatory practices in the present as well as in the past.

Some people on and off-campus have protested these efforts at anti-racism as radical and unbalanced. They mock them as being “politically correct.”

But, by and large, in my experience these actions have been sincere attempts to promote knowledge of and respect for people with backgrounds and perspectives different from the majority, even if sometimes not well thought out.

To understand the dynamics on a college campus, we must consider the role of higher education and the nature of the student body.

The role of advanced education is to foster critical thinking and openness to new ideas as well as mastery of subject matter. Such an education encourages questions, even of beliefs and opinions that seem to be iron-clad.

Thus, in the teaching of history, we must ask the source of the information. Is it history as recorded by the master or the slave, the Brahmin or the Bohemian, the husband or the wife? Whose history is being recorded and told? The answer to this question matters, even when the results are uncomfortable or disquieting.

A good teacher provides materials with different perspectives to encourage debate. Such a teacher fosters questions and often models the Socratic or scientific method by challenging student assertions, not as punishment but as encouragement.

However, some conservative commentators object to a critical analysis of American history or public policy because it exposes damaging behaviors and policies of our country. These facts will not go away if the lessons are canceled or ignored, and the accomplishments of the nation will not be negated by understanding the whole story.

Such commentators also ignore the various forces on a campus to promote effective teaching instead of preaching. These include academic program reviews that involve interviews with students and alumni, course evaluations, post-tenure reviews, and the “Rate My Professor” website as well as word-of-mouth comments by students about faculty.

The other dimension to campus life that should be understood is that students and their parents have become more interested in career preparation and a first job than in critical inquiry. Some students and parents complain about degree requirements in the humanities, arts, and social sciences when they want to focus on career preparation.

At the same time, there are other students, a minority in my experience, who exhibit the enthusiasms and certitudes of the young who think they know the “truth” and will brook no dissent. They, too, need to be encouraged to question assumptions and not attempt to cancel those who question their assertions.

Both sets of students are influenced by the broader culture where political divisiveness promotes canceling rather than communication. Unfortunately, the divisiveness off-campus is being found more often in the board rooms of our institutions.

One of the major functions of higher education is to provide an environment in which young students can engage with learned faculty to debate and discuss the big questions of the age and the ages.

It is the role of the faculty and the administration to ensure that such an environment is supported, that it is OK to question the orthodoxies of the right, left, and center, and that the pursuit of knowledge is a process that is ongoing, a journey that will last a lifetime.

Dr. Robert A. Scott, Professor Emeritus and University Professor Emeritus, Adelphi University, and author, How University Boards Work, Johns Hopkins University Press.