Taking Back the Viewpoint Diversity Narrative

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Michael R. Ford
August 22, 2025

We have all seen the videos of social media influencers on college campuses engaging in one-on-one debates with students. Or the Jubilee Media debates where two people argue, often in fast monotone babble, while folks raise flags in a circle around them. Maybe I am just getting old, but I look at these things and I cannot quite follow what the heck is happening. If you have not stepped foot on a college campus lately (or at all) you could be forgiven for thinking higher education is all about young folks arguing with one another in a provocative manner or that free speech is really a performance art consisting of folks saying shocking things in hopes of getting a reaction.

To be clear, things like Jubilee Media and YouTube debates are just the latest caricatures of the idea of viewpoint diversity on campus. Though less conducive to the current era of social media and meme culture, there remains a subset who view free speech and viewpoint diversity on campus as merely about debates and provocative speakers. Though debates and speakers certainly have a place on college campuses, the role of the university is not to be a debate club. Universities are at their core a place where knowledge is created and transmitted.

Consistent with core concepts of Public Administration, universities should strive to create and transmit knowledge in a manner that is efficient, effective and focused. I will start with efficiency as it applies to the free inquiry space. I cringe when I see the price tags for some speakers that are brought to college campuses. In a time of austerity, it is hard to justify spending ten thousand dollars (or more) for a speaker when those funds could be used to develop and deliver courses, internships or research related to free inquiry. Unlike a speaker, such activities can have a shelf life that lasts far beyond one evening. Free speech theatre may attract attention, but its impact is surface level and fleeting.

I am similarly skeptical of recent efforts to build parallel colleges and institutions within universities that are focused on civic education and viewpoint diversity. It is not that civics education and viewpoint diversity are not important, they obviously are, but separating and isolating the concept of viewpoint diversity from the core structure of the university is inefficient. It also implies that viewpoint diversity is not and cannot be woven into the base culture of a university system. Creating and transmitting knowledge is impossible without a commitment to free inquiry which requires true viewpoint diversity that is not isolated and not associated with one partisan ideology over another.

An effective commitment to viewpoint diversity is where the most work needs to be done. It begins with serious efforts to conceptualize and measure viewpoint diversity. One of the more damaging narratives is the assumption that viewpoint diversity applies to only political or social issues. Accepting this narrative alienates the majority of academic disciplines where political and social issues are not part of the curriculum. But viewpoint diversity does exist in every academic discipline. Research and teaching move forward by questioning and improving upon that which came before. Every discipline has intellectual debates around issues large and small. To effectively take back the narrative on viewpoint diversity, in my opinion, faculty and staff must create a culture where viewpoint diversity goes beyond the political and social and is relevant to a broader constituency.

Finally, a focused approach to viewpoint diversity means staying on point and not allowing commitments to free inquiry to fall victim to partisan politics. The recent Manhattan Statement is an instructive example. Billed as a solution for the intellectual homogeneity on too many college campuses, it quickly devolves from a thought-provoking critique to a buzzword-laden attack on Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Such statements illustrate the current choice academics and universities face: Do we seize the narrative by actively engaging in serious efforts to improve viewpoint diversity broadly defined? Or do we resist serious efforts to promote viewpoint diversity and allow a concept that is the very foundation of the university to be redefined by those most hostile to higher education’s role in a pluralistic society?

At a time where higher education is often blamed for a litany of social and political ills via hyper-partisan messengers, it is understandable why faculty might view initiatives aimed at promoting viewpoint diversity as a trojan horse for attacking the entirety of academia. But knee jerk resistance to serious efforts to promote viewpoint diversity cedes the narrative to ideological groups who, ironically, often have little to no viewpoint diversity within their own ranks. There is an alternative path, it is time for serious people to take it.

---

Author: Michael R. Ford is the Director of the Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue at the Universities of Wisconsin. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and education policy. He is an elected member of the Oshkosh Area School District Board.

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...