1984 revisited: Implications for leaders in higher education in the United States

Abstract

This article offers a current perspective on George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) utopian society in the context of 2022 and implications for higher education and society in the United States. Societies have experienced numerous issues portrayed in 1984 including power struggles and censorship, and identity politics and cancel culture are impeding an open discussion of ideas. Higher education has been considered a bastion of intellectual inquiry and spirited discussions, where faculty members are in a position of authority in the classroom. This authority can influence the learning environment and experiences; however, both faculty and students are feeling threats from various sectors both internally and externally. To address these matters, findings from various reports and studies indicate a need for greater diversity in perspectives on critical issues in academia, which could impact the preparation and the nature of learning experiences provided for students.

Introduction

Although George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) does not claim to be historical in nature, it presents a vivid description of the contradictions that can exist within a utopian society, some of which could be perceived as reality under our present circumstances. The following is a perspective on Orwell’s views of the utopian future relative to the realities of the world since 1949, including challenges currently facing our society along with suggestions for addressing these challenges relative to higher education in the United States. The following perspective will be shared through the concepts of power, censorship, and community. The world today is a product of the past and, as leaders, we can either be a force for change or merely reflect the attitudes and goals of society. We need to objectively look at our past record and present endeavors to ascertain whether we are educating individuals to serve mankind or just themselves. Unfortunately, our society has not always been adept when it comes to learning from our past.

Orwell’s 1961

Upon reading Orwell’s 1984, it is easy to say we have already experienced “1984.” The term dystopian has been used to describe the society depicted in 1984 and is currently appearing in the media describing individuals’ perspectives of others in positions of leadership. Whether the term accurately describes our current situation is open to intellectual inquiry. Without question, various aspects of the novel are descriptive of events that have occurred since its publication in 1949. We are living in a period of economic and social uncertainty and various cultural groups have faced, and are currently facing, a period of uncertainty socially, economically, and even politically. While some conflicts have involved other countries and societies, they have directly or indirectly impacted individuals in our society. Such was the case for Orwell’s society of Oceania, which was constantly at war with Eurasia or EastAsia, depending upon which society best fit their goals at a given time.

Power

In addition to conflicts between societies, our society is experiencing internal conflicts. Unfortunately, we tend to react to situations instead of developing strategies and processes to ward off conflicts. Regardless of the nature of the tension, power is often central to the situation. Power can come from those in control or central to the efforts of those seeking to increase their influence within a culture or among several societies.

According to Stone (2002), power builds upon and is derived from all elements of the political entity. Individual interests become subordinate to the public interests and one of the challenges is trying to combine self-interest with public interest. Where these intersect, community problems arise. Communities are characterized by diversity and addressing problems involves integrating individuals into the larger community without destroying their individual or group identity. Likewise, being a member of the larger community does not always grant an individual membership into the smaller sub-communities.

Concomitant with the acquisition of political, social, or economic power is the potential subjugation of others to positions of lower status and, in some cases, positions of inferiority. Orwell’s Oceania had “the proles.” Through the use of various means, Big Brother and the Inner Party were able to reduce the populace to an obedient and, in some cases, non-caring group of people. While the means to the end varied, a common thread can be identified. Whether real or perceived, people felt that their physical, as well as psychological, well-being were threatened. They felt as though they were constantly being watched and that their present actions would determine their ultimate fate. People were unsure as to who might be their friend or foe, resulting in the inability to develop a clean and/or trusting relationship with anyone. One exception can be found in the relationship developed between Winston and Julia, but even here ulterior motives prevailed (Orwell, 1961).

Ultimately, the psychological pressure placed upon the people of Oceania by Big Brother resulted in a loss of self-respect, as well as respect for others. One’s existence was determined by completing assigned tasks and not questioning what was occurring, even if one knew it was wrong. The mentality of “ignorance is bliss” was present, as individuals learned that they were better off if they did not try to think for themselves. The ultimate price exacted for non-conformity was vaporization (Orwell, 1961).

People today do not have to worry about their every action being monitored by a telescreen capable of detecting thoughts; however, there could be a movement in this direction with advances in artificial intelligence. Within conflicts, individuals in power or those seeking power often view those who did not support them as being personally against them. This can play out in different ways in different sectors of society. Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) have conveyed this concept within the phrase “The Untruth of Us Versus Them.” Individuals are labeled as good or bad depending on the group with whom they are identified. This idea has also evolved into the concepts of tribalism and identity politics where a shared hatred emerges on the part of individuals based on political ideology, race, gender, etc. If an individual has been wronged, others who identify with the group also take on the persona of being wronged. If ideas were openly and widely accepted by those in power as well as those on the outside, it would probably be safe to assume that they were in society’s best interest. When this support is absent, and the leaders do not wish to change, the obvious option available is the use of either subtle or overt force if they want to remain in power or gain a position of power.

Even where such extreme consequences do not exist, many individuals have become prisoners to themselves and do not share their thoughts and feelings with others. Sometimes, people feel alienated from their neighborhood and community (Semenza and March, 2009) and are reluctant to carry out their responsibilities as citizens of a given society. In a specific example reported by Portney (2005), civic engagement was viewed as an important component of developing sustainable cities; however, findings from the investigation did not provide a strong relationship between participation and sustainability. Findings from a study in Portland, Oregon (Semenza and March 2009), purported community organizing efforts generally had a positive impact on quality-of-life matters. However, in findings reported by Wanka (2018), older adults in a deprived area of Vienna, Austria, indicated spatial agency was intense along with spatial alienation. Individuals distanced themselves from their neighborhood which may have been a coping mechanism. While not just specifically associated with urban areas, the concept of democracy implies laws are made by the same individuals who are governed by those laws. Democracy also implies engagement in the political process. Unfortunately, those who are most in need of social change are those who are less likely to be engaged in the political process through voting (Lanning, 2008). Adams et al. (2006) indicated that alienation and indifference contributed to individual abstention from voting during the 1980–1988 presidential elections period. Findings from both studies support the contention by Semenza and March (2009) that feelings of alienation can contribute to an absence of engagement as citizens in a society. This perspective was supported by Ross (2000) whereby lack of participation was a result of alienation from self and the larger society.

Censorship

Another means of retaining power is through a carefully orchestrated procedure called censorship, whereby governments or governmental units determine what information is to be made available to its citizens. One form of censorship involves altering past history, which was constantly occurring in Oceania. For those in power, such censorship serves several functions. It first removes any standard that can be used for comparison and secondly provides a safeguard for the infallibility of those in power.

Censorship has occurred in institutions of higher education. On appeal of a ruling by the United States District Court of Eastern Kentucky in 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a case whereby the administration of Kentucky State University confiscated the university yearbook, the Thorobred, due to poor quality and content objections (Kincaid and Gibson, 2001). The court ruled the yearbook was a public form and “confiscation of the yearbook violated Kincaid’s and Coffer’s First Amendment Rights” (7). Censorship has also been associated with hiring practices including the signing of loyalty oaths. This practice was held to be unconstitutional in a ruling handed down in Keyishian et al. v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York et al. (1967).

Censorship can occur when individuals self-censor. In a recent report “60% of students can recall at least one time during their college experience when they did not share their perspective for fear of how others would respond” (FIRE, 2020: 2). Respondents to the survey were from 55 of America’s top ranked, prestigious four-year institutions. In a recent study reported by the Knight Foundation and Ipsos (2022), 65% of the study participants believed “their school’s climate stifles free expression” (7). Furthermore, participants felt free speech was important and students should be exposed to a wide spectrum of speech.

While the previous court cases were related to public education, individuals across various sectors of our society and economy are facing challenges when expressing views that are considered by some to be contrary to a culture of identity politics and cancel culture. Recently, Bari Weiss, an editor and writer for the New York Times resigned stating she had “been the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views” (Trachtenberg and Likas, 2020: B1). Likewise, the Time’s editorial page chief, James Bennet, resigned after being highly criticized for approving an opinion piece and his assistant, James Dao, was removed. Dissenting perspectives can contribute to strong organizations and according to Mark Rosenbert, “institutions suffer when leaders became too insulated, too reliant on their hand-picked inner circles. I’m worried about groupthink” (as quoted in Blumenstyk, 2020a: 7).

While identity politics and cancel culture are not unique to institutions of higher education, these concepts have been associated with the obstruction of expression of ideas at various institutions. Ellis (2020) identified several instances on university campuses to include but not limited to incidents at Middlebury College and Lewis and Clark College. In 2017, Sociologist Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, was attacked along with a colleague, while leaving a lecture given by Murray. In 2018, Christina Summers’ lecture at Lewis and Clark College was shut down when she shared “personal preference and not sexist discrimination” (as quoted in Ellis, 2020: 16) played a role in career decisions by females. In 2018, College Fix Staff reported playwright and professor Wendy MacLeod canceled the production of her play The Good Samaritan at Kenyon College that portrayed illegal immigrants after receiving strong criticism from students and some faculty and administrators. While production of the play was halted and the administration did not appear to take any action, the incident highlighted problems that can occur at the intersection of institutional policies and public controversies.

Higher education

Community

Community is a widely accepted aspect of our society and can be characterized in many ways. The sense of community can also depend upon the cultural group. In a study reported by Wuthnow (2018) the sense of community in rural America was best understood as a moral community whereby “people feel an obligation to one another and to uphold the local ways of being that govern their expectations about ordinary life and support their feelings of being a home and doing the right things” (4). There are expectations associated with living in the community such as taking responsibility for yourself; however, the community is there to support others when needed and individuals communicate with one another.

Rural America

This concept of community associated with rural America can have implications for higher education and the larger community institutions serve. Although graduates of rural high schools are typically academically prepared for higher education, only 59% of graduates attend college and only 29% of college and university students are from rural America (as cited in Marcus and Krupnick, 2017). Findings from a recent study by the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges indicated 1078 institutions are classified as rural serving (Koricich, 2022). Although reasons for non-attendance vary, Marcus and Krupnick (2017) cited “disdain toward rural America as commonplace on campus” (para. 31) as one factor. Gettinger (2019) reported a lack of outreach by higher education as another variable; however, this perspective may be counterproductive in an environment of decreasing enrollments. Fall 2021 college enrollments dropped 2.7% from the previous fall and a total of 5.1% over the past 2 years (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). Graduates from rural high schools tend to come from lower socio-economic levels; therefore, they may be in great need of financial assistance. They may also experience challenges relative to success including transportation and access to technology. These students may also be first generation and, if so, could experience barriers related to culture shift and integration into the college environment (D’Amico and Dika, 2013). Sheila Martin has identified students from rural areas as an “underrepresented group” (as quoted in Blumenstyk 2020b: para. 14) and an increasing theme in higher education.

University campus implications

Although students from rural America are only one cultural component on university campuses, other students may not feel they have a voice. If colleges and universities are to continue their central role in the “collective vision of what constitutes a good and just democratic nation” (Thelin, 2019: 438) faculty must provide opportunities for students to engage in experiences involving 21st Century skills in a safe environment that fosters learning without fear or rejection of the ideas they have expressed. The concept of a safe environment whereby individuals can engage in discourse without fear of censorship is also supported by Correa and Hall (2021). Intellectual growth occurs when individuals have opportunities to question their beliefs and views; however, faculty have to be cognizant of the relational position of power they have with students. The importance of helping students to develop the skills to respond to the challenges they may face at the collegiate level also has implications for success upon graduation.

Workforce readiness

The content of offered courses is geared toward the knowledge that the universities believe their students will need in order to be successful. But in recent years there has been a growing rift between how well institutions believe they are preparing their students for the workforce and how well employers find recent graduates to be ready for the workforce (Jaschik and Lederman, 2019; Landrum et al., 2010). A study conducted in 2006 found only 10.3% of the employers surveyed rated two-year college graduates as “excellent” in terms of overall preparation for the entry-level positions and only 23.9% of respondents rated four-year college graduates preparation as “excellent” (Casner-Lotto and Barrington, 2006). Similarly, Busteed (2016) found that 98% of Chief Academic Officers (CAOs) believe that their institutions are “very/somewhat effective at preparing students for the world of work” (18) but only 11 percent “of business leaders strongly agree that graduated students have the skills and abilities that they need” (18).

In addition to the above findings, research has been conducted to get alumni’s perspectives on their own and their peers’ workforce readiness. Alumni reported there were qualities and characteristics that were expected of them in the workforce that college did not prepare them for. These included discipline and responsibility, increased confidence levels, independence, and maturity (Landrum et al., 2010). Alumni also reported that professors did not implement classroom policies that taught or reinforced the traits needed to be ready for the workforce. Specifically, professors should hold their students more accountable for their behaviors. They also recommended that instructors instill the importance of self-discipline, acting responsibly, teamwork, and setting priorities (Landrum et al., 2010).

Soft skills

Soft skills are now valued more than in the past and are typically defined as interpersonal skills that are linked to emotional intelligence (Shuayto, 2013; Halfhill and Nielsen, 2007). Soft skills include teamwork, communication, leadership, and problem-solving (Ritter et al., 2018). With new importance put on soft skills, it is more critical than ever that institutions incorporate content that teaches its students how to acquire and use these skills in the workforce. The Graduate Management Admission Council (2016) found that organizations are looking for new hires that fit the culture within the company, can work with teams, and have the ability to make an impact. Another survey found that the ability to work with a team consistently ranked in the top four desired skills, along with leadership, problem-solving, and communication skills. These skills were selected by 70% or more of the respondents (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2016). As more importance is given to soft skills and employers desire the advantage that they provide, institutions have a responsibility to prepare their students for the demands and desires of future employers.

Academic freedom

The concept of academic freedom is a unique and valued aspect of education; however, if faculty move too far in the direction of advocacy within the context of controversial issues, can they provide a learning environment that encourages students to develop 21st Century skills and develop the habits of mind in university learning environments? Ellis (2020) contends intellectual inquiry and advocacy are at different ends of a continuum with different goals and with politics. This dichotomy takes on greater importance as individuals are questioning the value of a college degree. According to Mrig and Sanaghan (2018), one-third of Americans do not believe a degree is required to get a good job and higher education is too slow to respond to the skills gap. Mrig and Sanaghan also point out recent research showing the value of a degree but also the public opinion toward degrees, “the research is clear that the value of a degree is increasing, but public skepticism of the value is growing at the same time” (11).

It is not only the perceived diminished value and growing skepticism of the degree within the context of workforce development that is currently confronting university leadership but also increased incidences of inequality, which impacts all students (Taylor and Cantwell, 2019). Faculty members feel an erosion of academic freedom and students feel no one is listening or they are afraid to express their views for fear of retaliation. Findings from Wuthnow’s (2018) study conveyed that some first-generation university students from rural areas experienced culture shock upon attending college. Students felt isolated and lacked self confidence when trying to make new friends in a new and much larger cultural setting. Growing up in a small community can leave students with an absence of skills to navigate the challenges and opportunities associated with college and university environments. Students from rural areas have also expressed the absence of a need to attend 4 year institutions as vocational and career programs provide sufficient preparation for their future careers. These factors can be magnified in university settings which are often characterized as politically liberal (Ellis, 2020) and rural environments are often viewed as more conservative (Wuthnow, 2018). These perspectives and influences cannot be ignored by campus leaders, especially in the current social, economic and political climate.

Facilitating change

Individuals in leadership positions are responsible for individuals, programs, and budgets in their respective units, but are also part of a leadership team that extends beyond themselves. While they are expected to support individuals and programs within the unit, there is also an expectation of team membership as a leader within colleges, divisions, and institutions. Leaders must be able to take a 30,000-foot perspective of their areas of responsibility as the decisions may impact others.

Authority

Power comes with positions of authority and how we use our power can be impactful both from a positive and negative perspective. Leaders must keep their focus on why they come to work every day, our students. Within the context of the institutional mission and the role of higher education within society, leaders have the responsibility to not only facilitate the success of the students but to also prepare them for success in a career of their choosing and to become productive members of a global society. Opportunities for engagement in varied experiences are essential if institutions are to provide students with the skills to make appropriate decisions relative to their own well-being and for the well-being of others.

As previously stated, history can provide powerful lessons and how we use the lessons from the past can be helpful or detrimental to a student’s well-being. Our own perspectives and philosophy can influence the ultimate outcome. Leaders have to be cognizant of the fact they are the leader for all individuals for whom they have responsibility as well as many others within the context of the institution. A recent event at Oberlin College is a powerful example of how well-intentioned behaviors can have a negative impact not only on students but also the institution. Two students were accused of shoplifting two bottles of wine and a protest followed. An office within the context of student affairs supported the protests by providing materials associated with the protest of the business from which the wine was taken. Ultimately, the students admitted to shoplifting the wine, but a lawsuit ensued with a multi-million dollar judgment going against the college (Lederman, 2019). While efforts to support students in civic engagement and activism are honorable, consequences can be negative, and individuals can become victims. Terms such as fragility, safetyism, and microaggression have become common to our vocabulary in institutional settings and in the literature, and oftentimes individuals have been encouraged to interpret situations in the least favorable light. Such encouragement can lead to emotional reasoning and ultimately lead to conflict and a reduction of trust (Lukianoff and Haidt, 2018). The long-term solution could be helping individuals to deal with difficult situations before they occur. Institutions must be planning for what could happen 5 years out in terms of policy development or our efforts inherently become reactionary.

Individuals in leadership or positions of authority must provide appropriate opportunities for individuals to develop skills in the areas of multicultural or multiethnic education or students may leave the experience feeling their perspectives have not been validated. Furthermore, addressing cancel culture is more than managing the reputation of an institution or that of individuals (Veil and Waymer, 2021), and should include “respect and validate audience feelings and concerns” (Ropeik, 2006: 254).

As leaders and/or educators, one’s position of authority provides them with the opportunity to influence situations in many ways. One has to keep others at the forefront of their decision-making and be willing to make the tough decisions in difficult situations. Leadership is not a popularity contest and how leaders use their influence is extremely important. They must listen to others, model expected behaviors within the context of their responsibilities, and maintain a moral compass. If it does not sound nor look right, it probably is not something they want to do or support. Likewise, leaders need to surround themselves with individuals who come from diverse backgrounds and bring diverse perspectives to the decision-making process when dealing with difficult situations. Unfortunately, there tends to be a practice to hire individuals who look and think like us which can impact some students negatively. This has been an issue relative to ethnicity for quite some time and has the potential to become an issue in the current politically charged environment relative to faculty perspectives on controversial issues.

While a recent edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education 2021–2022 Almanac (2021) indicated 63.3% of the Fall 2019 incoming freshmen identified themselves in terms of political views “as middle of the road, conservative or far right” (38), according to Tyson and Oreskes (2020) the academy is considered to be more liberal than the general public. Ellis (2020) reported findings that would indicate the leftward tilt of faculty is increasing; however, the key is not necessarily the political perspective of the faculty but whether students are engaged in experiences requiring them to develop critical thinking skills. Leaders have the capacity to influence the types of experiences provided for our students in a way that will prepare them for successful careers in a society that is becoming increasingly global. They also have the capacity to influence hiring decisions, without implementing loyalty oaths, to help avoid groupthink behaviors and to provide role models for all students. As educators, Harrison and Williams-Cumberbatch (2022) posit that we must offer alternatives such as democratic civility to the “social media mindset of calling out, canceling, silencing, and/or indoctrinating” (21).

Moving forward

It is apparent that what Orwell envisioned in 1984 (1949) has, to an extent, become reality. We are not living in a utopia; however, there are some who would like for us to believe that their society or culture is a utopia. If such visions are truly going to evolve into a utopian society or, more realistically, one that values the rights of every individual, educators in higher education have a monumental task ahead. As depicted in 1984 and characterized in our society and throughout the world today, the quest for power can only be achieved if something is given up. That something can be individual freedom and human dignity. One of the best defenses against such occurrences can be found in a quality education that encourages students to think critically and make sound decisions. However, in the past, higher education has often not provided or has removed the opportunity for students to involve themselves in experiences that enable them to develop critical thinking and decision-making skills. Furthermore, questions have been raised regarding the preparation of incoming students to engage in critical thinking and whether their “motivation, behaviors, and attitudes are aligned with institutional commitments” (Arum and Roksa 2011: 3).

If students are to be open-minded and able to evaluate situations based upon evidence available, they must be exposed to all sides of issues discussed in class and feel free to ask questions about information to which they are exposed. The meaning of an idea, phrase, or word has to be interpreted within the context in which it was written or stated. Likewise, those in positions of power and authority must be open to different perspectives. Otherwise, educators are imposing censorship within the classroom or within their sphere of responsibility.

Universities and colleges are organizations of different sizes and mission, and members of the faculty and administrators are all in position of power to influence the success of students. As mentioned above we have the responsibility to expose students to different perspectives on critical and controversial issues which can result in students beginning to question or strengthen their own views and in other cases becoming highly critical of a faculty member and or member of the administration. Academic freedom does not afford individuals the right to engage in discriminatory behavior, hate crimes, or harassing behavior. Instead, members of the academy should “foster an atmosphere respectful of and welcoming to all persons” (American Association of University Professors, 2007: 7).

According to Haiman (as quoted in Haskins, 1996), there are three basic premises associated with freedom of speech:

1. People have a basic right to accept or reject points of view “[c]ommunication which does not allow for this autonomous decision-making violates the integrity of those to whom it is addressed and thus does injury to them;”

2. Informed people are “ultimately the best judge” for making decisions concerning their own interests; and

3. We stand a better chance “of approximating truth and avoiding the most serious errors when communication is free that when it is restricted.” (88)

Individuals in leadership positions must establish a culture whereby all individuals in the organization will engage in “responsible free speech” (Haskins, 1996: 90). Furthermore, individuals should be encouraged to engage in interpersonal dialogue with opportunities for robust discussions. Censorship, cancel culture, tribalism, etc. imped dialogue and interfere with our role of preparing individuals to become enlightened and productive members of society. Within our role, according to Wyatt (2016), it is not plausible to prepare learning environments that are devoid of harm to students and the real world is not always a caring and protective place. However, we do have an ethical responsibility based on the interrelated constructs of content, context, and mutual obligations to inform students the information may be disturbing. Wyatt contends this approach would not support the setting of rigid policies or never using warnings.

Educator influence

As educators and individuals in positions of leadership, we need to help students develop an understanding of the relationship among important events that have influenced the history of humankind. Such understanding cannot occur in a vacuum, nor by exposure to facts alone. Students must be encouraged to think at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, be exposed to problem-solving activities, and engage in critical thinking experiences. Unfortunately, findings reported by Schneider and Deane (2015) contended faculty mainly use traditional instructional strategies with little focus on actively engaging students in the learning process. As humans are complex beings, many of the problems throughout history could have been avoided if people would only have taken time to understand the culture of other individuals and societies. This understanding is more important than ever as societies are dependent upon each other for their existence. Therefore, we must place an emphasis upon instruction related to developing responsibility and effective human relationships to adequately prepare our graduates to address future opportunities and within a global society. Furthermore, initiatives must be put in place that support the rights of all learners to an appropriate education (Schelbe et al., 2019). A recent report released by the Association of Governing Boards and Gallup (2020) indicated that only 35% of the trustees responding to a survey agreed that our graduates possessed the skills to be “competitive in a global economy” (2). This can have tremendous implications for higher education as some of our graduates may be denied the opportunity to become gainfully employed, which is an indirect misuse of power.

The inclusion of various disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities in the curriculum has the potential to help students understand the nature of human beings and their culture. However, the liberal arts have been questioned by various stakeholders and some institutions have begun eliminating various academic units associated with these disciplines and eliminating the accompanying majors (Brint et al., 2012; Marcus 2018; Pangle 2013). This trend will probably continue unless individuals can document that liberal arts are making a difference in the productivity of our graduates. Because of the lack of data and the accompanying understanding, higher education must educate the public about the importance of the liberal arts. Facts are important when dealing with people, but only when we understand those with whom we are dealing. Otherwise, all of the facts and their interrelatedness that have been taught are going to become the ends unto themselves.

Conclusion

We are truly living in difficult times, and while it has been more than 70 years since 1984 was written, aspects of the novel sound familiar. Higher education is not exempt; however, we are in a position to influence what occurs in our society. Our governance structures in public education are becoming more politicized and decisions are open to greater criticism. Public opinion of higher education has changed, and students are looking for educational opportunities outside the traditional degree program, that is, certificates, badges. Pressures are present from both inside and outside the institution and we must focus on what we can control and/or influence within the context of our mission. As leaders have the ability to influence numerous individuals including our students, it is important to help individuals develop the capacity to respect ideas they disagree with in an agreeable manner and to respect the individuals with whom they disagree. Change is difficult, and one of the early stages is how change will impact oneself (Hall and Hord, 1987). Leaders must be visionary in their work and create the capacity of individuals and institutions to solve controversial problems in a manner that addresses the needs of the larger society. The United States has positioned our institutions to become leaders across the world in the education of scientists, doctors, educators, researchers, and numerous other professionals. However, will this position of leadership continue in an environment that is increasingly associated with the censorship of ideas?