A Chronology and Overview of

Autumn 2022 – Strategic School Leadership LLC (“SSL”) was retained by the Trinity School Board in the a�ermath of the situa�on involving faculty member Ginn Norris and Project Veritas. The three partners from SSL who agreed to engage in this work are:

Margarita Curtis, PhD. – former Modern Language Department Chair and Dean of Studies at Phillips Academy Andover and for 13 years Head of School at Deerfield Academy in western Massachusets

Richard I. Melvoin, PhD. – former History Department chair and Dean of Studies at Deerfield Academy, former Assistant Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Harvard College, and for 25 years Head of School at Belmont Hill School, located near Boston, Massachusets

Z. Vance Wilson – long�me English teacher, English Department chair and administrator at several independent schools before serving for 19 years as Headmaster of St. Albans School in Washington, D.C.

December 7-8, 2022 – SSL spent two days on Trinity’s campus, mee�ng various representa�ves of the school, including the Advisory Commitee established to help in this work (and including parents, faculty and trustees), and refining the work ahead.

December 2022 – In the a�ermath of the on-campus visit, SSL considered several firms to help SSL and Trinity conduct a survey of students, faculty and staff, and parents to explore issues of “open inquiry and viewpoint diversity” at Trinity. SSL presented two candidates to Trinity, and Head of School John Allman par�cipated in Zoom interviews with the two finalists. SSL and Trinity decided to work with the firm Mission & Data LLC (www.missionanddata.com). The three M&D partners engaged in this work were Ari Betoff, Sarah Enterline, and Avis Leveret.

January 2023 – SSL and Mission & Data worked together to dra� a survey instrument for Trinity. With significant review and revision from Trinity, notably via the Head of School and Board chair, M&D completed a revised survey by the end of the month.

February 2023 – M&D administered the survey and then dra�ed a report that summarized its findings. That was reviewed and revised by SSL. A 9-page slide deck was created out of the report for SSL to use when it visited school.

March 13-16, 2023 – The three members of the SSL team spent four full days at Trinity. The goals in every mee�ng they led were the same and three-fold: to review the findings from the survey, to respond to ques�ons or comments, and to seek ideas for how Trinity could make changes to enhance opportuni�es for open inquiry and expressions of viewpoint diversity, both in and out of the classroom.

SSL met with 28 groups over the four days:

School Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

Eleven Student Mee�ngs: focus groups in every grade level from grade 6 through 12, open mee�ngs for any interested students in grades 9/10 and11/12, and mee�ngs with the Upper School Senate and SDLC (Student Diversity Leadership Council)

Eight Faculty Mee�ngs: separate mee�ngs for Lower, Middle and Upper School facul�es, two open mee�ngs for any faculty and staff, mee�ngs with the History and English departments, and a mee�ng with the Department Heads

Nine Parent Mee�ngs: 2 for parents in the Lower and Middle Schools, 3 for parents in the Upper School, plus mee�ngs with the PA DEI Commitees leadership and the PA Cabinet

In addi�on, SSL made itself available for individuals or couples who wanted to meet privately. There were 8 such mee�ngs.

April 25, 2023 - SSL returned to campus for the day to meet with the Advisory Commitee, the senior administra�ve team, and 15 members of the board of trustees to review its findings and dra� recommenda�ons. SSL also met with one addi�onal parent couple.

March/April 2023 - SSL dra�s a report to present to the Board at its mee�ng on May 11.

May 11, 2023 - SSL presents in person its report to the Board.

Strategic School Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

“Free expression is not a problem with a solution bounded by the laws of physics that can be hacked together if only enough coders pull an all-nighter. It is a dilemma requiring messy trade-offs that leave no one happy. In such a business, humility and transparency count for a lot.”

The Economist (19 December 2022)

The purpose of this section of our report is to provide some overarching ideas that we three partners at Strategic School Leadership took from our visits to the school and from the results of the survey conducted by Mission and Data LLC. But any study of Trinity needs, first, to place the school in a larger context: in the world of schools, particularly independent schools, but also in New York City and in an America that is roiled by deep divisions and, often, a loss of civil discourse. (This report’s accompanying Reading List provides a representative sample of publications highlighting dimensions of this challenge.)

What we thus offer first are some general observations and points of context.

 In addressing issues of open inquiry and viewpoint diversity, what Trinity is dealing with is not “a problem to get solved.” Instead, the school – to its credit – is leaning into a complicated, sometimes emotional set of issues that are impacting not only the school but much of American society. These issues can be “addressed” but there will never be perfect solutions.

In addressing these ideas, it is important to acknowledge that the world, this country, and Trinity School are very different than they were ten or seven or even three years ago.

• The political landscape is more polarized; divisions are greater than they were; anger and fear are greater – on all sides.

• One manifestation of that is the loss of clear understanding of different political beliefs, including such concepts as “liberal,” “conservative” and “progressive” – and in some places civil discourse has been lost or replaced by angry and divisive rhetoric.

• With that concern in mind, we urge care in use particularly of the word “liberal,” for in the western tradition of education, “liberal” has referred to (according to the Oxford Dictionary) “willing to accept or respect opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.”

• So too has the word “conservative,” which has a long and broadly accepted history in political and social theory, been of late misused, further limiting healthy discourse.

• Issues of racial and social justice have become more critical for many people in this country, including significant numbers of students, parents, teachers and administrators. These issues were becoming more central well before George Floyd’s killing in May of 2020, but gained significant momentum at that point.

• For many independent schools, Floyd’s killing became a flashpoint to examine, more deeply than ever before, their role in society. Points included:

- Schools’ histories in regard to addressing issues of race and inequality

- The harm that had been done to some students of color, especially black students, in the past that schools had not been aware of or had not responded to adequately

- The ways in which schools should address these issues, looking both backward and forward

- New questions about what a school’s mission should be in addressing issues of racial and social justice

• Challenges brought by social media continue to increase, as well as questions not only about what is “right” but even what is “true”

• Schools are still reckoning with the impact of the pandemic, not only in terms of learning loss but also in terms of the socialization of children and their social and emotional development

• The pandemic also had a damaging effect on the efforts of all schools to build community and, with that, trust. This extends not only to students and teachers but to parents as well.

 In addition to the recent rise of the aforementioned issues, independent schools have felt for some time inexorably rising pressures in a range of programs and services, including:

• Achievement and success in athletics and other extra-curricular activities

• Providing sufficient support for students, particularly around social and emotional learning

• College admissions

These forces, when combined with more attention in schools to issues of diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging, have only exacerbated the pressures.

 Amidst all that, it is also appropriate to note that, even as many schools have made commitments to greater engagement on issues of racial and social justice, there has been pushback from some community members, or at least tension, at both the scope and speed at which some schools have addressed these issues.

 In viewing this complex web of forces, we urge caution not to conflate issues. Examination of “open inquiry and viewpoint diversity” is related to but is not identical to efforts in schools to address broader issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”). In looking specifically at Trinity, one of the tensions we uncovered is that some community members view – or fear – the examination of open inquiry and viewpoint diversity as an attempt to limit DEI efforts.

 Another complexity in this work, at Trinity and at many other schools, is a distinction between efforts that promote diversity, equity and inclusion that relate to a broad array of ethnic, racial, religious, socioeconomic and even political groups versus particular efforts that focus on the African-American or Black experience in schools, in America’s past and in society today.

 Our work at SSL has taken us to literally dozens of independent schools in the last three years. There is not a school we have worked with that has not faced these issues.

 If there is a general pattern that we have observed in the schools with which we have worked, particularly in the northeast, it is that many faculties have shown significant commitment to this work; that large numbers of students support such efforts; that parents have had somewhat more mixed views; and that some boards of trustees have expressed concern about the extent and rate of change.

Three Constituencies – Three Lenses Three Sets of Observations

While any generalizations have their limits, after reviewing the survey data and talking with literally hundreds of Trinity students, teachers, and parents, we offer two different ways to consider where Trinity now sits in regard to the core issues of open inquiry and viewpoint diversity. First, we think it may be helpful to acknowledge that the three key constituencies at the school – students, faculty and staff, and parents – have different lenses through which they view the school. Thus, we think it is of value to outline different key themes that emerged from each group.

Faculty. Here are some ideas that focus on the faculty experience:

 Many faculty members at Trinity (and at many schools, private and public) were deeply impacted by the political storm of recent years, accelerated by the 2016 election and then particularly by George Floyd’s killing and its aftermath. Many have asked themselves, and their schools: where do larger issues of social and racial justice fit into the education of young people? How should students learn about new or historically not represented voices or subject matter?

 As noted above, it is also important not to conflate two issues. One is the issue of “open inquiry and viewpoint diversity” – but the other is Trinity School’s role in addressing issues of social and racial justice, especially in these inflamed times. To the latter: in what ways and to what degree should Trinity be addressing these issues? The efforts of the ARTF demonstrate significant commitment, and many in the community look now to see what the speed and extent of implementation of the Task Force recommendations will look like.

 Yet one could add a third issue here: how does Trinity best work with its students, and its parents, in a world that is seeing rapid changes in addressing social issues, from gender expression and gender identity to microaggressions to changes in the study of history and the humanities to challenges of what is “true” to the role of media and social media?

 Further, what is the proper role of a faculty member in teaching about these issues, or in integrating them into an existing program? Is a teacher’s job to introduce ideas without a point of view, or are some of these issues appropriate for a teacher to address directly, including expressing one’s own beliefs? As examples, should differing views of racism be given moral equivalency? Many people, at Trinity and beyond, would say no. Yet by possible contrast, should different views about gay marriage be considered, given that some in the Trinity community have religious or cultural views that do not support it?

 We believe this issue – the proper roles for faculty in the classroom – lies at the heart of this entire study. Acknowledging its complexity, we add one more dimension of this challenge: the current debate now playing out on many college campuses over what constitutes “free speech.” This is a different issue than “open inquiry” or “viewpoint diversity” but it needs to be acknowledged, even if it might be separated from Trinity’s future discussions.

 This issue becomes still more complex when one considers the historic “independence” of independent school teachers. Many teachers, particularly of long standing, have prized – and expected – autonomy in the classroom. How does a school honor significant autonomy but also maintain appropriate accountability? How much autonomy is desirable – by teachers, administrators, parents? How much is appropriate?

 Amidst these challenges also lie new pressures that some teachers have felt since the pandemic began. There is great concern within the profession that there remains significant exhaustion from having to deal with the impact of Covid, with a reckoning of racial and social justice issues and, at least for a time, with new ways of teaching driven by the pandemic. Across the country, more teachers are leaving the profession, and many schools, even strong ones like Trinity, are seeing shrinking pools of qualified candidates. How can the school find, retain and support a strong faculty?

 The faculty have instituted significant changes in curriculum over the last 10 years. While our time with faculty has been limited, we understand that these include:

• Major reworking of some curricular offerings, particularly in the History Department at the Upper School level

• New thinking about pedagogy, some of which comes in response to greater sensitivity to issues of difference among students at Trinity and among people in American society and in the world

• Additions to or changes in some of the programs of the Middle and Lower Schools, reflecting issues being discussed in society, that focus on issues of gender, sexual identity, race, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status

 How does Trinity provide a good balance between curricular and pedagogical innovation and its strong traditions? And how do changes get made and reviewed?

Parents. If the first set of issues focuses on the faculty, another broad set centers on parents. Some key issues:

 Not only Trinity students and teachers but parents have been adversely affected by the pandemic. Numerous parents feel they have lost an easy level of access to the school that existed before March of 2020.

 Understanding this, it may not be surprising that the Board’s initiating of a study of “open inquiry and viewpoint diversity” catalyzed a range of responses from parents that went significantly beyond the most immediate questions raised by the faculty matter of last fall. As one example, many Lower School parents particularly lamented the loss of daily time every morning that included the chance to come into the school building. Second, several parents expressed concern about some dimensions of the school’s DEIB efforts. In sum, many parents responded to the opportunity to participate in the Mission and Data survey by raising a host of issues that had given them concern over the last three years.

Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

 When one couples physical isolation with the political, racial and social issues that have roiled American society in the last several years, it is not surprising that some parents feel somewhat distant from the school. Some parents who have been part of Trinity for many years spoke wistfully about the sense of loss.

 Given that feeling of isolation and separation, several parents feel a greater need for more or better communication from the school, especially as the school has continued to make changes in response to changes or challenges in society.

• One example is the issue of sexual identity and the number of people in American society, including students (some of them quite young), who see themselves as nonbinary: not fitting into traditional and historic “binary” divisions of male and female.

• A second example is the evolution of language used to describe students of different racial or ethnic backgrounds

• Curricular changes made by the school also reflect evolving thinking from faculty about the best possible course content. In history and social studies, that might include a more nuanced or complex look at people who have traditionally been seen as heroes. For example, how does one reconcile Thomas Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence and as the holder of slaves through his lifetime? As part of that question, at what point in a child’s education is it appropriate to introduce such complexities?

Students. Trinity’s students are of course at the heart of the enterprise, living through these changes in school and society. Engaged and thoughtful, the students with whom we interacted wrote or spoke about a range of themes that have emerged for them:

 As an important starting point, the survey results and our 11 meetings with student groups showed that Trinity’s students are generally very positive about their school.

 It was striking that through four days of conversations with students in both the Middle and Upper Schools, little concern emerged about the use of social media platforms. Cell phones were ubiquitous in “The Swamp,” yet students did not express concern about misuse of social media, of inappropriate messages or shaming or “cancel culture.”

 Students affirmed results from the survey that indicated strong overall support for teachers, yet several readily asserted that there are individual faculty who do not support or even allow for viewpoint diversity, at least on certain subjects.

 Contrary to data from the survey, in conversations many Upper School students stated that students with conservative views were allowed to express their opinions, in and out of class, as long as they did not (to use a student’s phrase) “act like jerks.”

 While some parents are concerned with Trinity introducing ideas about gender identity or matters of racial and social justice in classes or in special programs (seen particularly in the

Middle School program in grades 5-8, addressing gender, socioeconomic status, racism and unconscious bias), the students seemed unruffled by these. One Middle School student group explained that “we know all that already” – which may or may not be true, but which seemed noteworthy.

 While the incident in the fall clearly upset many adults in the Trinity community, at this stage the students we heard from have moved past it. That does not mean that the students do not take the issues seriously – the February 2nd issue of the Trinity Times made this entire study of “open inquiry and viewpoint diversity” its lead story. But Upper School students seemed to have largely moved on, and most Middle Schoolers did not have much memory or understanding of the incident at all.

One of the more challenging dimensions of this study has been the effort to synthesize the quantitative and qualitative data of the “mixed methods” survey administered by Mission and Data LLC. It is a testament to how seriously the Trinity community has taken this study of open inquiry and viewpoint diversity that no fewer than 1221 members – students, parents, faculty and staff – took the time to fill out the survey. It is also impressive that 675 of those respondents also saw fit to add comments to augment the quantitative responses.

All three members of the SSL team read all the comments; we three also took an extra step of having each do a “deeper dive” into one of the three constituent groups (students, faculty/staff, parents), coding the responses, quantifying those that were positive, negative or mixed, and then writing up general themes or conclusions from each constituent group. The nine “observations and points for reflection and discussion” that follow here emerged from this work ONLY if they were seen in the qualitative review of all three constituent groups and complemented appropriately the quantitative data from the study. That does not mean that they represent a majority sentiment – but it does mean that all three groups had enough people raise the issues that they warranted inclusion in this set of observations.

We also note that a comprehensive summary of the Mission and Data survey accompanies this report, with a review of methods, process and statistical summaries. A shorter summary of that report, in the form of a Powerpoint, was used by SSL in conducting its 28 meetings with student, faculty and staff, and parent groups in March of 2023.

With that explanation of methodology as a framework, the nine ideas that we offer for reflection and discussion are:

1. All constituencies believe that most Trinity teachers are talented, committed, caring and interested in the different ideas of their students

2. An acknowledgement that Trinity, like many independent schools in New York (and beyond), has a liberal or “left-leaning” orientation – and that most members of the Trinity community in general are comfortable with that

3. While the majority of Trinity community members believe that students have great freedom to express their ideas, several community members asserted that openness to different views depends greatly on the teacher.

4. This survey of “open inquiry and viewpoint diversity” catalyzed a set of responses in the “comment” section, especially from parents, that went well beyond the core issue under study to include matters ranging from DEI efforts to school communications to teaching about gender

5. Despite letters from the Head of School and Board president, concern persists that Trinity’s study of viewpoint diversity might be seen as in direct conflict with the efforts of the AntiRacism Task Force (ARTF)

6. For some members of all constituencies – students, faculty and parents – there is significant peer pressure not to express views that are not liberal or progressive.

7. There exists fear among some that a student expressing dissent politically or culturally could lead to a lower grade from a teacher or, from fellow students, a loss of place or even ostracism.

8. There is concern that dominant social, religious or cultural beliefs at school make it difficult for some students to openly express their beliefs.

9. There is some worry that the rise of DEI work at Trinity, even though broadly supported, has ironically created, for some, an environment that belies the school’s goals of diversity and inclusion in examining some issues and has ushered in an “orthodoxy” that inhibits open inquiry and viewpoint diversity

Recommenda�on #1

Make the full SSL report, including the Mission and Data survey results, available to the en�re Trinity community.

We believe that a board request to all cons�tuencies to par�cipate in the survey should be mirrored by a willingness to share the results. Sharing the report can help enhance trust throughout the school community and encourage progress as the school moves forward.

Recommenda�on #2

Create a leadership group to review the SSL report and oversee implementa�on of recommenda�ons

• Leverage exper�se of administrators and faculty members who are interested in and excel at ppromo�ng open inquiry and viewpoint diversity.

• Charge the group with reviewing Trinity’s most recent strategic plan (Vision 2027), the An�Racism Task Force (ARTF) report, and this SSL report with a focus on points of convergence among the three studies.

• Engage in substan�ve discussion about both convergences and possible divergences among the three reports. Work with school leadership to determine next steps to ensure the fulfillment of ins�tu�onal goals and priori�es and to coordinate plans for implementa�on of proposed changes.

Recommenda�on #3

Remain student-facing.

• Keep the focus, from day-to-day opera�on to strategic thinking, on the best educa�on that can be offered to this genera�on of students, especially given the extraordinary societal changes and pressures they face.

• In determining points of convergence and divergence among the three studies, in each case ask what programs and prac�ces can best support the students of Trinity School not the board or administra�on, faculty, parents or alumni, but the current students.

School Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

Recommenda�on #4

Engage the faculty as central to this work.

• Provide the resources, most importantly the �me, for faculty to discuss the challenges they face in addressing open inquiry and viewpoint diversity, and consider appropriate steps forward.

• Ask the hard ques�ons. What do or should “open inquiry” and “viewpoint diversity” mean at Trinity School? When are they difficult or even undesirable? From the administra�on perspec�ve, how should this work be overseen at the school, including the ques�on of how much autonomy a teacher has or should be given, but also by what criteria teachers are hired, evaluated, and supported in professional development?

• Faculty work needs to be both internal – within the current faculty – and also outward facing.

• Bring to campus resources (speakers, programs, organiza�ons, readings) that focus on open inquiry and the effec�ve exchange of ideas (see the SSL report’s Resource and Readings sections)

• Be willing as a faculty to explore Trinity’s values, consider its norms, and examine both content and pedagogy.

• Ensure that this faculty effort results in concrete, specific steps to enhance open inquiry and viewpoint diversity as is appropriate for each of the three divisions and across academic disciplines.

Recommenda�on #5

Renew a schoolwide focus on community.

• Consider possibili�es for chapels (both individual events and ongoing programs), community �mes, debates, open mee�ngs, and any other gatherings devoted to students in all three divisions of the school.

• While support of viewpoint diversity should be part of these gatherings, so should a spirit of mutual support and affec�on for the school and for one another.

• Recognizing that the loss of community has been felt by parents as well as their children, find ways to enhance communica�on and appropriate contact at the school again with ini�a�ves for all three divisions.

• Remembering the toll that the pandemic and other issues have had on faculty and staff, find ways to honor and support the adults who make the school run every day.

• Finally, remembering the highest values of Trinity School, engage in this difficult but important work with good heart, good inten�on, and grace.

In this list we offer a representa�ve sample of publica�ons and websites that highlight recent controversies in schools and college campuses across the country, resul�ng from a variety of factors: speaker disinvita�ons, 'shout-downs,' demands to rename campus landmarks, community-wide diversity statements, safe spaces, speech codes, trigger warnings, and other measures that some view as barriers to open inquiry and viewpoint diversity.

We also include examples of policies and statements issued by colleges and universi�es in response to these incidents, highligh�ng their commitment to freedom of expression as a fundamental cons�tu�onal right, and as essen�al to the mission of the university in a democra�c society.

These selec�ons are followed by a list of recent ar�cles that emphasize the intersec�on and viability of free expression and inclusivity, and that promote a balance between open dialogue and the need to make all community members feel safe and included. The premise of this sec�on is that free speech can coexist with efforts

In the “Resources” sec�on we include several entries that provide guidance on how to foster construc�ve debate and dialogue across differences at academic ins�tu�ons, with the goal of equipping young people – and the teachers who mentor them with the tools, skills, and disposi�ons to par�cipate effec�vely and generously in a “poli�cally vibrant, mul�-racial, mul�-faith democracy.” (newpluralists.org).

A Chronological and Representa�ve Sample of Polariza�on and Conflict in Higher Ed

**Denotes Highly Recommended

• The Aspen Ins�tute. (2018, April 3). Clash of Values? College campuses, free speech, inclusion, and safe spaces [Video]. YouTube.

• Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good inten�ons and bad ideas are se�ng up a genera�on for failure. Penguin Press.

• ** Behrent, M.C. (Winter 2019). A tale of two arguments about free speech on campus. American Associa�on of University Professors.

Excerpt: AAUP’s Commitee on Government Rela�ons 2018 report, Campus Free-Speech

Legislation: History, Progress, and Problems. As the commitee’s report on campus free-speech legisla�on notes, “many of the most difficult issues surrounding free speech at present are about balancing unobstructed dialogue with the need to make all cons�tuencies on campus feel included.”

Strategic School Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

• PEN America. (2019, October 21). Chasm in the classroom: Campus free speech in a divided America.

• McWhorter, J. (2021). Woke racism: How a new religion has betrayed Black America. Regnery Publishing.

• Steele, D. (2022, June 2). Afraid to speak up or out. Inside Higher Ed. Student reluctance to speak freely on campus rose again in the last two years, according to a survey. But are things as bad as the numbers indicate?

• Mounk, Y. (2022, June 16). The real chill on campus. The Atlantic. Most students are open to real debate. But their colleges are failing them.

• Flaherty, C. (2022, November 7). Divisive academic freedom conference proceeds Inside Higher Ed.

Controversial event on academic freedom at Stanford University goes forward amid controversy. Speakers include Amy Wax, Jordan Peterson, Scott Atlas, Joshua Katz and more.

• **Adichie, C.N. (2022, November 30). Freedom of speech – The Reith lectures. BBC Radio.

• Patel, V. (2023, January 8). A lecturer showed a painting of the prophet Muhammad. She lost her job. The New York Times.

• Hoffman, A. (2023, March 1). My liberal campus is pushing freethinkers to the right. The New York Times.

• Will, G.F. (2023, March 12). When it comes to a political craze based on a bad idea, worse really is better. The Washington Post.

• The Wall Street Journal (2023, March 14). DEI Is Dying On College Campuses. Or Is It?: Students weigh in on their experiences with diversity, equity and inclusion practices in higher education.

• French, D. (2023, March 23). Free Speech Doesn’t Mean Free Rein to Shout Down Others. The New York Times.

• Shields, J.A. (2023, March 23). Liberal Professors can rescue the GOP. The New York Times.

• Hilliard, J. and McLaren, M. (2023, March 28). Newton School Committee votes down controversial advisory panel, calling it ‘a Trojan horse.’ The Boston Globe.

• Hasnas, J. (2023, March 29). What does it take to really protect campus free speech? The James G. Marton Center for Academic Renewal at Duke University. Policy adoptions are useless without enforcement mechanisms.

• Knott, K. (2023, March 30). Republicans: Campus free speech under attack. Inside Higher Ed “My colleagues and I have the delicate job of considering how to ensure compliance through enforcement mechanisms that our law currently lacks.”

Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

• Rosman, K. (2023, April 12). Should college come with trigger warnings? At Cornell, it’s a ‘Hard No.’” The New York Times “We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack [University President] wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff

• Alonso, J. (2023, April 13). Shouting down speakers who offend Insider Higher Ed “Over the course of a month, students on four different college campuses shut down speakers they disagreed with. Why is it so hard to forge a consensus on what protecting free speech really means?”

• Quinn, R. (2023, April 14). A Texas trilogy of anti-DEI, tenure bills. Inside Higher Ed. Three Texas bills would end tenure, force universities to fire professors who “attempt to compel” certain beliefs and ban what the legislation defines as diversity, equity and inclusion programming. The State Senate has already passed one.

• **French, D. (2023, April 16). The moral center is fighting back on elite college campuses. The New York Times. “It’s important to emphasize that the fight over free speech on campus is not left versus right. Attempts to suppress ideas and stifle speech come from both ends of the political spectrum. The faculty and administrators at Stanford, Cornell, Harvard and Chicago who are making their stands aren’t a collection of conservatives taking on woke college students. Instead, they represent the moral and legal center of the American academy taking on the extremes. Left and right tend to challenge free speech on campus in different ways. Left-leaning students have led shout-downs and disrupted events, while right-leaning legislators have passed or considered laws stifling the expression of controversial ideas about race and gender. Both sides have proved capable of mobilizing online outrage to punish professors who offend their constituencies.”

• Quinn, R…(2023, April 18). Tennessee Again Targets ‘Divisive Concepts’. Inside Higher Ed “While other Southern states advance legislation targeting what they define as DEI, Tennessee has passed legislation inviting complaints about professors.”

• **Backon, J. (2023, April 19). Letter. Intrepid Ed News: OESIS Network. “I spoke with a number of faculty members from different schools about the approach to integrating DEI into the curriculum. They were concerned that their school's emphasis on learning the history of the poor treatment of disadvantaged groups was being interpreted as an indictment of the white race; that white students were feeling guilty about acts and policies carried out by their predecessors, and in some cases, family and friends. The conclusion was that the goals of equity and belonging programs were not being enhanced, but rather inverted. The white majority was now being excluded in Ibram Kendi’s binary portrait: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. How did our sincere efforts to improve equity and belonging yield the unintended consequence of reversing those efforts?” oesis@oesisgroup.com

Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

• **Moody, J. (2023, April 21). Ex-Presidents for Academic Freedom. Inside Higher Ed “PEN America has convened a group of 100-plus former college presidents to push back on threats to academic freedom as higher education remains a frequent target for politicians.”

• Saul, S. (2023, April 23). At U.Va., an alumnus attacked diversity programs. Now he is on the Board. The New York Times. “Mr. Ellis is part of a growing and forceful movement fighting campus programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, known as D.E.I. Politicians, activists and alumni who oppose the programs say they enforce groupthink, establish arbitrary diversity goals, lower standards and waste money that could go to scholarships. Lawmakers in 19 states have taken up legislation to limit or block university D.E.I. program.”

• Knox, L. (2023, April 27). North Dakota quietly enacts first anti-DEI law Inside Higher Ed. “North Dakota governor Doug Burgum signed into law on Monday a “specified concepts” bill banning educational institutions from asking students or prospective employees about their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It also prevents public higher education institutions from requiring noncredit diversity training of any students or employees.”

• Quinn, R. (2023, April 28). Hundreds of UNC professors oppose ‘overreach.’ Inside Higher Ed. “Faculty members are opposing what they consider encroachments from three sources: the state Legislature, the UNC Board of Governors and the Chapel Hill Board of Trustees itself.”

• University of Chicago. (1967). The Kalven Committee: Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action. “To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community... It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted... The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest. It finds its complement, too, in the obligation of the university to provide a forum for the most searching and candid discussion of public issues… From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.”

• University of Chicago. (2014). Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression. “But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”

Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

• Princeton University. (2015). Princeton's commitment to freedom of expression.

• Williams College. (2019, November 13). Faculty Steering Committee's Statement on Free Inquiry and Inclusion.

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2022). MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom.

“

We cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious. At the same time, MIT deeply values civility, mutual respect, and uninhibited, wide-open debate. In fostering such debate, we have a responsibility to express ourselves in ways that consider the prospect of offense and injury and the risk of discouraging others from expressing their own views. This responsibility complements, and does not conflict with, the right to free expression.”

• Martinez, J. S. (2023, March 22). Next Steps on Protests and Free Speech [Letter]. Stanford Law School

• Patel, V. (2023, April 9). At Stanford Law School, the Dean takes a stand for free speech. Will it work?. The New York Times.

A View from the Inside: The Higher Ed Perspec�ve

**Denotes Highly Recommended

• Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2014). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. Routledge. [Dean of the School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison].

• Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. Routledge. [Dean of the School of Education at the University of WisconsinMadison and Program Director of the Center for Ethics and Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison]

• Sexton, John. (2020). Standing for reason: The university in a dogmatic age. Yale University Press. [President Emeritus, New York University]

A powerful case for the importance of universities as an antidote to the “secular dogmatism” that increasingly infects political discourse John Sexton argues that over six decades, a “secular dogmatism,” impenetrable by dialogue or reason, has come to dominate political discourse in America. Political positions, elevated to the status of doctrinal truths, now simply are “revealed.” Our leaders and our citizens suffer from an allergy to nuance and complexity, and the enterprise of thought is in danger. Sexton sees our universities, the engines of knowledge and stewards of thought, as the antidote, and he describes the policies university leaders must embrace if their institutions are to serve this role. Acknowledging the reality of our increasingly interconnected world and drawing on his experience as president of New York University when it opened campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai Sexton advocates for “global network universities” as a core aspect of a new educational landscape and as the crucial foundation-blocks of an interlocking world characterized by “secular ecumenism.”

• Knispel, S. (2022, October 21). Why free speech –and especially disagreement matters on college campuses. University of Rochester NewsCenter.

• **Diermeier, D. (2023, March 17). How to combat tribalism on campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education. [Chancellor of Vanderbilt University]

“The next step is to set explicit expectations for constructive conversations and hold students to a high standard. Just as we ask them to adhere to an honor code, we can ask students to uphold civil discourse as a core value. We can insist that they seek to understand first and judge later. We can oppose name-calling as a substitute for thoughtful argument and call out refusals to engage with the other side as counter to intellectual life. We can remind students that they are members of one community, committed to living and learning together — even when that means doing so alongside people with whom they disagree…. it’s incumbent on us to give students the resources and support they need to risk engaging with unlike-minded peers on highly charged issues... the most urgent free-speech question on our campuses isn’t just whether someone has the right to say something. It is whether we can teach students to talk with one another in a way that allows understanding and cooperation to follow.”

The Viability of DEI Efforts and Free Expression

**Denotes Highly Recommended

• Palfrey, J. (2017). Safe Spaces, Brace Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education. MIT Press. [former head of school at Phillips Academy, Andover]

• Jay, J. (2017). Breaking Through Gridlock: The Power of Conversation in a Polarized World. Berrett-Koehler Publishers

• PEN America. (2019, March 13). And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Free Speech at U.S. Universities.

• National Constitution Center. (2019, March 22). Free speech on college campuses: Administrators & free speech. [Video]. YouTube. Dean Ted Ruger of Penn Law, President Tom Sullivan of the University of Vermont, President Ken Gormley of Duquesne University, and President Julie Wollman of Widener University, examine how they balance free speech and inclusion interests on campus.

• **PEN America. (2019, April). Balancing free speech and inclusion: Four simple strategies for campus leaders.

Strategic School Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.

• Israel, T. (2020). Beyond your bubble: How to connect across the political divide, skills and strategies for conversations that work. American Psychological Association.

• Schultz, K., & Gatti, L. (Eds.). (2021). Learning and living in polarized times: Insights from conversations about social identity, polarization, and learning. Teachers College Press.

• **Stockman, F. (2022, November 5). This group has $100 million and a big goal: To fix America. The New York Times “In February 2020, in the midst of a vitriolic presidential election, an idealistic group of donors from across the ideological spectrum met to plan an ambitious new project. They called themselves the New Pluralists and pledged to spend a whopping $100 million over the next decade to fight polarization by funding face-to-face interactions among Americans across political, racial and religious divides.”

• American Council on Education. ACE, PEN America resource guide to help leaders make the case for academic freedom and institutional autonomy. (2023, February 24).

• NASPA. (2020). Free Speech and the Inclusive Campus: How Do We Foster the Campus Community We Want? NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

• O’Neil, E. and Fay, J. (2022, November 7). Discussing politics in classrooms is an opportunity for growth, not division. EdSurge. Five core principles of constructive dialogue

• Princeton University. (2023). The Intersection of Free Expression and Inclusivity.

• Wilfrid Laurier University. The Intersection of Freedom of Expression and Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. (n.d.).

• **Balaven, K. (2023, Spring). An educator’s recipe for depolarizing schools and selves. Independent School Magazine NAIS.

School Leadership: Serving school leaders so their schools may thrive.