Colleges Spend Like There’s No Tomorrow. ‘These Places Are Just Devouring Money.’


By Jenna A. Robinson

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

March 16, 2023


Last week, faculty at Davidson College affirmed their commitment to free expression on campus by approving their own version of the Chicago Principles. It’s a step that the pro-free-speech organization Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse (DFTD) has been promoting for five years and a major free-speech milestone for the college.

In an email to the Martin Center, DFTD founder John Craig described the statement as “a landmark document for Davidson.”

The statement affirms:


True free speech, free expression, and academic freedom are not generational or preferential. In pledging to honor these ideals, we must recognize that this task can be arduous and precarious. Davidson has a professed commitment to free inquiry and to the inclusion of diverse persons and communities. We admit that these obligations have historically been more aspirational than actual. Acknowledging the intentional and unintentional exclusion of ideas and identities is both honest and constructive. Individuals and groups have been marginalized and their voices muted based on race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, disability, class, ideology, citizenship, and religious or political affiliation.


Craig said, “DFTD is very pleased with the Commitment to Freedom of Expression statement just affirmed by Davidson’s faculty. [We] look forward to helping ensure activation of the stated principles throughout the Davidson College community. We greatly appreciate the work that the drafters and faculty put into developing and gaining affirmation of this statement.”


Davidson’s progress demonstrates the importance of engaged alumni.


The campaign began when DFTD sent a letter to then-president Carol Quillen urging policy changes including the “adoption and vigorous implementation at Davidson of the Chicago Principles of Free Expression—the ‘gold standard’ of free speech in academia.”Then, in October 2021, President Quillen appointed a working group to draft and submit a statement on freedom of expression that would be distinctive to Davidson in relating free speech to the school’s ideal of inclusiveness.


The new commitment was drafted by a working group consisting of two faculty members (Issac Bailey and Susan Roberts), two students, one current Davidson trustee, and Martin Center namesake former governor Jim Martin. Martin praised Davidson’s efforts in a college press release, saying,


Our nation needs more of what Davidson can provide—a place where debate runs civilly and freely, in a residence hall or a lecture hall. The college has produced doers and thinkers who made our society and our world better because their ideas and arguments were challenged every day on campus. This commitment was crafted by a group who came from different backgrounds, experiences and ideologies, and those differences brought a lasting result.


There is still work to be done at Davidson. DFTD’s wishlist for reforms includes policy changes that would raise the college’s FIRE rating to a “Green Light” score and new guidelines for on-campus political activism by the college’s leadership.


DFTD also wants the college to make “a concerted effort to diversify ideologically invited external speakers,” an issue on which there has been some progress, and to administer “biennial independently conducted confidential surveys of students and faculty to assess the state of free expression, open discourse, and ideological balance on campus.” DFTD provided a baseline for such a survey when it commissioned its own surveys of Davidson students and major donors in the fall of 2021.


With these steps, Davidson is moving in the right direction. This progress demonstrates the importance of engaged alumni and groups like Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse.


Davidson College Affirms Free Speech — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (jamesgmartin.center)




15 May, 2024
Annie Hirshman '24 May 15, 2024 Last year, I took a Political Science course with a certain professor. This was not uncommon for me, as I am a Political Science major. However, for students of different majors, this particular course was required in order to obtain a liberal arts degree from Davidson College. Therefore, this class serves as a lot of students' sole exposure to the political science department. I was in the classroom with a variety of individuals, ranging from the Phi Delt jocks to the studio art majors. This classroom had everything and everyone. Since this was the first time a lot of them had taken a political science course, the dialogue and discourse was somewhat quieter. Therefore, I felt encouraged to speak up in class. I participated often, sharing my opinion on daily issues and historical events that had shaped American politics. I hoped that my voice would encourage others to participate. Sharing my opinion took a turn for the worse on a certain Wednesday morning. As the semester progressed, I noticed that the teacher was only sharing liberal skewed media sources. When they would discuss conservative matters, it had a negative connotation. They often referred to Republican politicians as a whole using derogatory terms, almost asserting that one bad apple was synonymous with the bunch. I discussed what occurred within the classroom numerous times outside, especially with my classmates that were rather conservative. They spoke of how they felt alienated in class, frightened at the outcome if they were to share their opinion. As a natural-born extrovert and rather excited by the idea of questioning the professor, I spoke up. I asked them why they chose to share only liberal-based news sources and strayed from conservative outlets in their journalistic sources. Their answer was short and sweet: because they were the only accurate sources to garner information from. I was shocked and severely taken aback by their statement. Later that day, the professor followed up with an email ‘defending’ their position. Without their intent, they confirmed that they do not “explicitly seek to include conservative outlets”. They spoke of how there was an ongoing movement to tar outlets that were not relatively conservative. They continued that accurate news sources were under attack for liberal alignment when in reality (their opinion), they were honest and true. The professor asserted that Republican politicians were guilty of executive aggrandizement for these efforts. In addition, they asserted that sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shown to have a very limited liberal bias, if any. As someone who seeks to challenge my own and other’s beliefs, I did some research to see if these statements were accurate or not. I checked multiple sources to see which sources were actually ideologically skewed. The Allsides Media Bias Chart, which collects its information based upon multi-partisan scientific analysis, including expert panels and surveys of thousands of everyday Americans, provided convincing material. It asserted that the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post all skew left to the same extent that The Wall Street Journal skewed right. In addition, I analyzed the Ad Fontes Chart. In order to analyze their data and rate their sources, their methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist analysts. All analysts must hold a bachelor’s degree, while most hold a graduate degree and about one-third have obtained a doctoral degree. It argues that the Wall Street Journal is on the “skews right” section while the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN are on the “skews left” section. The fact that Davidson supports a professor that only teaches one side is sad but not shocking. This is an ongoing issue at this college. I know for a fact that I am not the sole student who feels this way. Teachers are supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think. Through supporting professors that promote a one-sided discourse, that statement is contradicted daily. Considering that the college routinely refers to the “Davidson Experience” in a positive way, I can’t believe that this is what they have in mind. At the end of the day, solely teaching one side is indoctrination. Davidson, coming from a student who admires and cherishes you, please do better so future generations of students feel both free and encouraged to speak their mind, even if it is different than the majority. Annie Hirshman is a 2024 Graduate of Davidson College with a degree in Political Science.
07 May, 2024
Students demanded that we side against Israel, violating the core principle of institutional neutrality.
03 May, 2024
Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.
Show More
Share by: