Taking Seriously Campus Debates Surrounding Invited Speakers: Open-Mindedness and the Ethics of Inquiry in Higher Education

Abstract

Context:

College campuses in the United States are currently engaged in public and ongoing negotiation of the value and limits of free speech in educational contexts. Responses to invited campus speakers from students, faculty, and campus leaders point to diverging perspectives on the roles and responsibilities of higher education institutions and their members as communities of inquiry. Considering these perspectives raises questions about the epistemic aims of colleges and universities.

Purpose:

The purpose of this article is to investigate perspectives on the ethics of inquiry and on the value and demands of open-mindedness in higher education. Specifically, I examined one case of an invited campus speaker who sparked considerable debate—Charles Murray’s invited talk at Middlebury College in 2017.

Research Design:

This study employs the methods of empirically engaged philosophy, a philosophical approach to inquiry that engages with empirical evidence in considering educational aims and implications for institutional structures and policies. I apply conceptual tools stemming from the philosophical theories of knowledge and justice to a thematic content analysis of public statements made by faculty, administrators, and students in the Middlebury case.

Conclusions or Recommendations:

Through analysis of this campus speaker case, I observed two alternative perspectives on the ethics of inquiry—rational individualism and just collectivism. These two perspectives shared a number of common commitments, including the importance of cultivation of the mind as a primary aim in higher education; the value of open-mindedness, debate, and protest in the pursuit of truth; and the importance of justice, equality, and inclusion. They diverged in their epistemic orientations (individual vs. collective responsibility), their views on the proper bounds of open debate within an institution oriented toward truth-seeking, and what virtuous open-mindedness requires of individuals and collectives. This study contributes to a contemporary understanding of the unique ethical responsibilities of colleges and universities as inquiring organizations, whose members may hold divergent epistemological orientations. By investigating the relationship between open-mindedness, inquiry, and justice in contemporary public discourse in higher education, this study addresses a need for deeper engagement with the philosophical foundations of higher education.

Keywords

higher education epistemology inquiry justice activism campus speakers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adler

(2004). Reconciling open-mindedness and belief. Theory and Research in Education, 2(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878504043440

Altanian

El Kassar

(2021). Epistemic injustice and collective wrongdoing: Introduction to special issue. Social Epistemology, 35(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2020.1843199

American Legislative Exchange Council. (2018, December 26). Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act (amended). https://www.alec.org/model-policy/forming-open-and-robust-university-minds-forum-act/

Anderson

(2012). Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 163–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.652211

Arpaly

(2011). Open-mindedness as a moral virtue. American Philosophical Quarterly, 48(1), 75–85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23025075

Baehr

(2011a). The inquiring mind: On intellectual virtues and virtue epistemology. Oxford University Press.

Baehr

(2011b). The structure of open-mindedness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 41(2), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/cjp.2011.0010

Ben-Porath

S. R.

(2017). Free speech on campus. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bilgrami

Cole

(Eds.). (2015). Who’s afraid of academic freedom? Columbia University Press.

10.

Blasi

(1999). Free speech and good character. UCLA Law Review, 46, 1567–1582.

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2013). Successful qualitative research. SAGE.

12.

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

Terry

(2018). Thematic analysis. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_103-1

13.

Chemerinsky

Gillman

(2017). Free speech on campus. Yale University Press.

14.

Choo

C. W.

(2015). The inquiring organization: How organizations acquire knowledge and seek information. Oxford University Press.

15.

Cremaldi

Kwong

J. M. C.

(2017). Is open-mindedness a moral virtue? Ratio, 30(3), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12149

16.

Dotson

(2014). Conceptualizing epistemic oppression. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.782585

17.

Dozono

Taylor

R. M.

(2019). Teaching for open-mindedness: A justice-oriented approach. Educational Theory, 69(4), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12380

18.

Fricker

(2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

19.

Fricker

(2010). Can there be institutional virtues? In Gendler

T. S.

Hawthorne

(Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 3, pp. 236–252). Oxford University Press.

20.

Goldman

Blanchard

(2018, Summer). Social epistemology. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemology-social/

21.

Hare

(1979). Open-mindedness and education. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

22.

Hare

(2009). Socratic open-mindedness. Paideusis,18(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.7202/1072334ar

23.

Jones

(2007). Numerous ways to be an open-minded organization: A reply to Lahroodi. Social Epistemology, 21(4), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720701746565

24.

Kidd

I. J.

Medina

Pohlhaus

(Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043

25.

Knox

(2022, September 19). Another disruption reignites campus speech debate. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/09/20/student-protesters-disrupt-controversial-speaker-unm

26.

Kuntz

A. F.

(2019). Controversial speakers, moral disagreements, and the Middlebury moment. Philosophy and Theory in Higher Education, 1(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3726/ptihe.2019.02.01

27.

Kwong

J. M. C.

(2015). Epistemic injustice and open-mindedness. Hypatia, 30(2), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12142

28.

Labaree

D. F.

(2017). A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendancy of American higher education. University of Chicago Press.

29.

Lackey

(Ed.). (2014). Essays in collective epistemology. Oxford University Press.

30.

Lahroodi

(2007). Collective epistemic virtues. Social Epistemology, 21(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720701674122

31.

Levinson

Newman

(2015). Editorial. Theory and Research in Education, 13(1), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878514562150

32.

Medina

(2013). The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination. Oxford University Press.

33.

Middlebury Newsroom. (2017, May 22). Middlebury College completes sanctioning process for March 2 disruptions. http://www.middlebury.edu/newsroom/archive/2017-news/node/547896

34.

Palfrey

(2017). Safe spaces, brave spaces: Diversity and free expression in education. MIT Press.

35.

PEN America. (2023). The basics. Campus free speech guide. Retrieved July 3, 2023, from https://campusfreespeechguide.pen.org/the-law/the-basics/

36.

Riggs

(2010). Open-mindedness. Metaphilosophy, 41(1–2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01625.x

37.

Schmitt

F. F.

(Ed.). (1994). Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge. Rowman and Littlefield.

38.

Silverman

Svrluga

(2022, October 25). Criticism grows after Penn State cancels event with Proud Boys founder. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/10/25/penn-state-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-canceled/

39.

Song

(2018). The moral virtue of open-mindedness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 48(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1335566

40.

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2019). Charles Murray. Retrieved July 22, 2019, from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray

41.

Spiegel

J. S.

(2012). Open-mindedness and intellectual humility. Theory and Research in Education, 10(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878512437472

42.

Taylor

R. M.

(2016). Open-mindedness: An intellectual virtue in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Educational Theory, 66(5), 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12201

43.

Taylor

R. M.

(2017). Indoctrination and social context: A system-based approach to identifying the threat of indoctrination and the responsibilities of educators. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12180

44.

Taylor

R. M.

Kuntz

A. F.

(2019). Navigating campus controversies: Seeking truth, respecting speech, and cultivating intellectual fairness in higher education. Harvard Educational Review, 89(1), 30–54. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.1.30

45.

Turri

Alfano

Greco

(2019, Fall). Virtue epistemology. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/epistemology-virtue/

46.

Wilson

T. S.

Santoro

D. A.

(2015). Philosophy pursued through empirical research: Introduction to the special issue. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9460-9