To be clear, I mean institutional neutrality in the sense of the Chicago Statement—preventing administrators from restricting speech or making statements of their own—not in the sense of hiring lots of contrarian professors to counteract liberal bias. The culture of UMich will probably remain decidedly not-neutral, but at least right-ish professors will be able to teach the classes and hold the opinions and invite the speakers they want, and still get tenure.
I think you're blind to censorship that affects people who don't share your ideology.
The institutions haven't been neutral for at least 60 years.
It is literally illegal for employers to allow their employees to express certain opinions in a workplace. If employees express certain conservative opinions, the company can be forced to pay gigantic fines for having a "hostile work environment."
The next day a student moderator posted a lengthy statement reading, in part:
"I want to acknowledge that some comments made in that space have caused discomfort and made members of certain communities feel as though their accomplishments and acceptance to Yale were less valued. ... As members of the Yale community, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that shared spaces—both in-person and online—remain respectful and safe for everyone. While academic discussion and curiosity are always welcome, it becomes harmful when conversations devolve into commentary that marginalizes or questions the worth of individuals from certain backgrounds."
I think this is chilling and stupid as much as you do. And I'm not sure whether the moderator was acting alone or with institutional backing—at the very least, he's certainly got implicit institutional support, which I think makes the statement unacceptable.
But if another student (even if a majority of students!) loudly shouted about how unsafe and attacked they felt, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. I'd think it was silly and fragile and embarrassing, but so long as Yale didn't parrot their bullshit, whatever.
It seems like the University of Michigan is now saying "we promise not to ever parrot the bullshit." Hooray! This is very good progress! It might not be perfect, but it really is very good.
I think you believe in Normal Liberal ideology. You probably believe that there is such a thing as bias and that it is a major factor in human affairs, that pleasure and pain are the chief moral considerations and things like honor and justice are much less morally important, that it's good that women got the right to vote, that democracy is good, that the 1960s "civil rights movement" was good, and that European Imperialism was bad.
Yeah, in the sense of actual LessWrong-coded cognitive biases (scope insensitivity, etc.). Not in the sense of "implicit racial bias permeates every aspect of human existence and always will."
> pleasure and pain are the chief moral considerations ... it's good that women got the right to vote
Spot on.
> democracy is good
Lesser evil, let's say.
> "civil rights movement" was good
Insofar as it made black people freer, yes. Insofar as it (really the subsequent decades of caselaw) "Origins of Woked," nope.
I don't know how to cash out "evil," really. Hitler certainly was counterfactually responsible for a ridiculous amount of suffering, but I suppose it's conceivable a more extreme example exists. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, though, so the only argument against "Hitler is most evil" I could make would be SBF-Shakespeare-style.
I have weird, non-majoritarian opinions, I promise!
I think professors should be able to offer basically whatever wacky classes they want! Institutional neutrality just means the administration shouldn't be picking sides or limiting expression—that extends to dumbass beliefs too.
In the real world, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many of those "20% of Americans" on campus, willing to offer or take an anti-vax course. Generally, the Hanania EHC theory solves this problem for us—university people are predisposed to dislike extremely idiotic ideas like young-earth creationism and (totalistic) climate change denial.
On the off-chance that a crazy belief hits the necessary threshold of popularity among EHC, professors will start teaching it—but the administrators should still sit on the sidelines, so that anyone with a bit of sanity left can argue against it. Ideally, this would've been the story of CRT-extremism: "30% of Americans, or 40% or 50%" (largely concentrated among the elite) started believing it, it started getting taught, the administrators didn't suppress opposing viewpoints, debates were had, and eventually academic opinion turned against it. Unfortunately, administrators instead *did* suppress opposing viewpoints, and it took a massive populistic LHC takeover of government to force academia to reevaluate itself.
Neutrality makes it possible to defeat insanity more naturally—you can host a speaker against vaccines, and then I'll debate you publicly, and because I'm right, I'll win, and you'll bow your head in shame and shuffle away. No institutional intervention necessary!
The Chicago Statement does involve exceptions for "expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University." And it also allows for basic time, place, and manner restrictions. I really think that oughta be the extent of the administration's responsibility to limit speech.
oh snap, you’re only a first year student? Bravo. Keep writing, you have a bright future.
(Just want to pass along the positivity no one gave me at that age, even though I sucked lol)
I go to UMIch will be fun to meet next year
Heh, still solid odds I end up elsewhere... https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/i/159222564/what-else-im-up-to
Though I should be in Ann Arbor plenty regardless.
Cogent.
Also, rearranging letters in ‘serve’ obtains ‘sever’. Heh.
Also, the Daily claimed “incoming LSA freshman” that presumably should be corrected to “admitted to LSA & Honors”?..
Yeah, presumably, but, like, whatever.
When do you think the institutions were neutral?
The University of Michigan? Since October 2024 (https://record.umich.edu/articles/regents-vote-to-approve-institutional-neutrality/). It looks like a fully sincere attempt too—they're even actively promoting "Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression" through a new institute (https://record.umich.edu/articles/institute-for-civil-discourse-to-launch-at-u-m/).
To be clear, I mean institutional neutrality in the sense of the Chicago Statement—preventing administrators from restricting speech or making statements of their own—not in the sense of hiring lots of contrarian professors to counteract liberal bias. The culture of UMich will probably remain decidedly not-neutral, but at least right-ish professors will be able to teach the classes and hold the opinions and invite the speakers they want, and still get tenure.
Also, the fact that the new policy makes outspoken pro-palis (https://www.michigandaily.com/michigan-in-color/the-illusion-of-institutional-neutrality/) and annoying comparative lit professors (https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/op-eds/the-university-of-severance/) so angry is a good sign—clearly it's expected to do *something* they don't like.
I think you're blind to censorship that affects people who don't share your ideology.
The institutions haven't been neutral for at least 60 years.
It is literally illegal for employers to allow their employees to express certain opinions in a workplace. If employees express certain conservative opinions, the company can be forced to pay gigantic fines for having a "hostile work environment."
What ideology do you think I have, exactly?
Yeah, I think harassment law is probably a bit too broad. Gonna tell a slightly-related anecdote here:
I'm in a Discord group for kids admitted to Yale this year. After NYU got hacked the other day (https://web.archive.org/web/20250322133330/https://www.nyu.edu/), we had a whole discussion about affirmative action. I contributed some data analysis and some thoughts (e.g., https://x.com/shteinsweremade/status/1903606497180877135), and it got a little heated, but we all treated each other civilly and respectfully.
The next day a student moderator posted a lengthy statement reading, in part:
"I want to acknowledge that some comments made in that space have caused discomfort and made members of certain communities feel as though their accomplishments and acceptance to Yale were less valued. ... As members of the Yale community, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that shared spaces—both in-person and online—remain respectful and safe for everyone. While academic discussion and curiosity are always welcome, it becomes harmful when conversations devolve into commentary that marginalizes or questions the worth of individuals from certain backgrounds."
I think this is chilling and stupid as much as you do. And I'm not sure whether the moderator was acting alone or with institutional backing—at the very least, he's certainly got implicit institutional support, which I think makes the statement unacceptable.
But if another student (even if a majority of students!) loudly shouted about how unsafe and attacked they felt, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. I'd think it was silly and fragile and embarrassing, but so long as Yale didn't parrot their bullshit, whatever.
It seems like the University of Michigan is now saying "we promise not to ever parrot the bullshit." Hooray! This is very good progress! It might not be perfect, but it really is very good.
I think you believe in Normal Liberal ideology. You probably believe that there is such a thing as bias and that it is a major factor in human affairs, that pleasure and pain are the chief moral considerations and things like honor and justice are much less morally important, that it's good that women got the right to vote, that democracy is good, that the 1960s "civil rights movement" was good, and that European Imperialism was bad.
Did I guess right?
I prefer to call it (lowercase) normal liberal...
> bias
Yeah, in the sense of actual LessWrong-coded cognitive biases (scope insensitivity, etc.). Not in the sense of "implicit racial bias permeates every aspect of human existence and always will."
> pleasure and pain are the chief moral considerations ... it's good that women got the right to vote
Spot on.
> democracy is good
Lesser evil, let's say.
> "civil rights movement" was good
Insofar as it made black people freer, yes. Insofar as it (really the subsequent decades of caselaw) "Origins of Woked," nope.
> European Imperialism was bad
Yeah, but per Caplan (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/01/colonialism_and.html), anti-imperialism was probably worse.
> Hitler was the most evil person who ever lived.
I don't know how to cash out "evil," really. Hitler certainly was counterfactually responsible for a ridiculous amount of suffering, but I suppose it's conceivable a more extreme example exists. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, though, so the only argument against "Hitler is most evil" I could make would be SBF-Shakespeare-style.
I have weird, non-majoritarian opinions, I promise!
Oh, and also that Hitler was the most evil person who ever lived.
And then there's the fact that every major university forces incoming students to take propaganda trainings on "sexual harassment" and diversity.
And many require propaganda courses to graduate.
I think professors should be able to offer basically whatever wacky classes they want! Institutional neutrality just means the administration shouldn't be picking sides or limiting expression—that extends to dumbass beliefs too.
In the real world, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many of those "20% of Americans" on campus, willing to offer or take an anti-vax course. Generally, the Hanania EHC theory solves this problem for us—university people are predisposed to dislike extremely idiotic ideas like young-earth creationism and (totalistic) climate change denial.
On the off-chance that a crazy belief hits the necessary threshold of popularity among EHC, professors will start teaching it—but the administrators should still sit on the sidelines, so that anyone with a bit of sanity left can argue against it. Ideally, this would've been the story of CRT-extremism: "30% of Americans, or 40% or 50%" (largely concentrated among the elite) started believing it, it started getting taught, the administrators didn't suppress opposing viewpoints, debates were had, and eventually academic opinion turned against it. Unfortunately, administrators instead *did* suppress opposing viewpoints, and it took a massive populistic LHC takeover of government to force academia to reevaluate itself.
Neutrality makes it possible to defeat insanity more naturally—you can host a speaker against vaccines, and then I'll debate you publicly, and because I'm right, I'll win, and you'll bow your head in shame and shuffle away. No institutional intervention necessary!
The Chicago Statement does involve exceptions for "expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University." And it also allows for basic time, place, and manner restrictions. I really think that oughta be the extent of the administration's responsibility to limit speech.