Seven Theses for Viewpoint Diversity

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recently published an essay in its flagship magazine, Academe, titled “Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity.” Written by Lisa Siraganian, the J. R. Herbert Boone Chair in Humanities and professor at Johns Hopkins University, the piece makes a sweeping and unsettling claim: that efforts to foster intellectual diversity on campus are “anathema to academic freedom.”

This was not an obscure post or a stray faculty blog entry. Academe is the AAUP’s most visible publication, read by professors, administrators, trustees, journalists, and policymakers nationwide. While the essay is not an official AAUP policy resolution, its prominent platform gives it influence and credibility. For many observers, publishing such a manifesto sends a message that the AAUP not only tolerates but amplifies these ideas.

The stakes could not be higher. Public trust in higher education has collapsed. A Gallup survey conducted earlier this year found that only 36 percent of Americans express significant confidence in colleges and universities, with just 19 percent of Republicans sharing this confidence. The lack of ideological diversity on campus is one of the most pronounced and visible drivers of this crisis. By framing viewpoint diversity as illegitimate, Academe has chosen to deny what students, alumni, and citizens can plainly see: the narrowing of debate, the silencing of dissent, and the rise of an academic monoculture.

Universities should be places of fearless inquiry, where multiple schools of thought collide in the pursuit of truth. Publishing an argument that openly rejects this ideal does not merely miss the point; it deepens the very crisis it claims to address. It substitutes orthodoxy for openness, ideology for inquiry, and isolation for engagement. To understand why this is so destructive, we must examine each of the essay’s seven theses—and why they fail both as arguments and as a vision for higher education.

Thesis 1: Viewpoint Diversity Is Anathema to Academic Freedom

Siraganian begins with a striking claim: “Viewpoint diversity is anathema to academic freedom.” She argues that the university’s job is to seek truth and uphold scholarly standards, not to balance competing political positions. From this perspective, viewpoint diversity is a political demand imposed by external forces—such as legislators, trustees, or advocacy groups—that threatens to compromise scholarly independence.

But academic freedom has never meant freedom from challenge. The Supreme Court has been explicit on this matter. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), the Court ruled that “the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas,'” warning against “a pall of orthodoxy” over teaching and research. In Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), the Court held that viewpoint discrimination is “an egregious form of content discrimination,” fundamentally incompatible with a public university’s mission.

The current reality on many campuses looks far more like the “pall of orthodoxy” the Court warned against. When whole disciplines drift toward uniformity on pressing social, political, and ethical questions, dissenting voices don’t just face critique—they face marginalization or exclusion. A university that tolerates only one ideological framework isn’t protecting academic freedom. It’s suppressing it.

Far from being “anathema,” intellectual diversity is the condition for academic freedom. Without it, the marketplace of ideas collapses into a monopoly. And like any monopoly, it becomes stagnant, brittle, and ultimately illegitimate.

[RELATED: Will Trump Revive Viewpoint Diversity?]

Thesis 2: Viewpoint Diversity as a Partisan Strategy

Siraganian argues that the push for viewpoint diversity is not a neutral reform but a political project. She situates the idea within contemporary debates about higher education, treating it as aligned with conservative critiques of universities and part of a broader agenda to reshape them.

This framing is revealing. By linking viewpoint diversity to partisan battles, Siraganian shifts attention away from the core question: Does ideological homogeneity exist, and does it harm the intellectual mission of universities? Instead of grappling with that evidence, she treats the very call for balance as suspect because of its perceived origins.

But the evidence is clear and overwhelming. Faculty surveys consistently reveal dramatic ideological imbalance. In many humanities and social science fields, the ratio of liberals to conservatives exceeds 10 to 1. In disciplines such as sociology, gender studies, and English, the imbalance is so extreme that it approaches a ratio of 100 to 0. A 2022 national survey found that nearly 80 percent of professors identify as liberal, while just six percent identify as conservative. These results have been replicated across multiple studies and over many years.

This imbalance has real-world consequences. Research by psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers found that significant percentages of scholars admitted to discriminating against conservatives in hiring, tenure, or publication decisions. That creates a vicious cycle: fewer conservatives enter academia, which deepens conformity, which then justifies further exclusion. Over time, entire schools of thought disappear from departments altogether.

I’ve written extensively about this at the American Enterprise Institute, documenting how AAUP leaders and faculty advocates often respond not by addressing the imbalance, but by denying its existence. Some AAUP officials have even said they would “love to see the data.” The data, however, are public and damning. Ignoring them doesn’t just exacerbate the problem; it undermines the very credibility of higher education.

By treating viewpoint diversity as nothing more than a partisan strategy, Siraganian sidesteps the evidence and alienates the very people higher education needs to persuade. It’s not about politics. It’s about whether universities are willing to face reality and live up to their own ideals.

Thesis 3: Viewpoint Diversity Mistakes Politics for Expertise

Siraganian warns that introducing viewpoint diversity would politicize hiring and scholarship, replacing scholarly judgment with crude ideological arithmetic. From her perspective, giving weight to worldview in hiring decisions would mean sacrificing standards of excellence in favor of balance.

But this argument collapses under scrutiny. The real politicization is happening now, under the guise of “neutral” academic standards. In many disciplines, ideological litmus tests— sometimes explicit, often implicit—shape what kinds of questions can be asked and who gets hired.

The current system is not politically neutral. Numerous faculty report having to hide their beliefs during job searches and peer reviews, knowing that open dissent could end their careers. When entire schools of thought are dismissed out of hand, that is not a lack of politics; it is politics masquerading as scholarship.

Viewpoint diversity is not about counting partisans or enforcing quotas. It’s about ensuring that whole perspectives are not erased. Imagine a law school that hired only prosecutors and no defense attorneys. Or a history department that taught only one side of a war. That would be intellectually bankrupt. Yet in many disciplines today, this is exactly what has happened: one paradigm has become so dominant that rival theories no longer get a hearing.

Ensuring intellectual diversity protects excellence. Without it, scholarship stagnates and peer review devolves into peer enforcement. Viewpoint diversity doesn’t weaken scholarly standards; it defends them.

Thesis 4: Some Viewpoints Are Too Dangerous or False to Include

Siraganian raises a familiar objection: that viewpoint diversity risks legitimizing dangerous or false ideas. She worries that under the banner of diversity, universities might be compelled to host views that are harmful or absurd, such as Holocaust denial or conspiracy theories.

But this sets up a false choice. Viewpoint diversity does not mean giving equal weight to every claim, regardless of its merit. It means ensuring that reasonable, evidence-based disagreements are not prematurely silenced by ideological consensus.

Research strongly supports this approach. A landmark paper by Duarte et al. in Behavioral and Brain Sciences found that political diversity reduces confirmation bias and sharpens reasoning. When scholars encounter dissenting perspectives, they are compelled to test their assumptions and refine their arguments. Without dissent, errors go unchallenged and bad ideas take root.

History shows this clearly. Many transformative ideas—such as plate tectonics and germ theory—were initially dismissed by the academic mainstream. Suppressing heterodox perspectives doesn’t protect truth. It stifles discovery.

When ideas are false, the remedy is debate and evidence, not banishment. Silencing dissent in the name of protecting truth doesn’t defeat bad ideas. It guarantees their survival underground, unexamined and unrefuted.

Thesis 5: Viewpoint Diversity Justifies External Interference

One of Siraganian’s most serious concerns is that politicians will use viewpoint diversity as a pretext to impose heavy-handed control over universities, mandating hiring quotas, micromanaging curricula, or threatening funding.

This concern isn’t entirely unfounded. Some state legislatures have indeed overreached in ways that threaten faculty governance. But rejecting internal reform out of fear of external control is self-defeating. When universities deny obvious problems, they invite political intervention.

The pattern is predictable. Departments become homogeneous. Leaders claim there’s no issue. Alumni and citizens grow frustrated. Eventually, legislators step in, arguing that universities have forfeited the right to self-govern.

The solution is not to reject viewpoint diversity. It is to proactively and internally embrace reform. Universities can adopt voluntary measures, such as transparent hiring processes, clear safeguards against ideological litmus tests, and mechanisms for open debate. By showing good faith, they can protect their autonomy and reassure the public that they are capable of self-correction.

Ignoring the issue only strengthens the case for outside mandates. Inaction is the surest path to the very interference universities fear most.

Thesis 6: Viewpoint Diversity Distracts From Real Diversity

Siraganian suggests that focusing on ideological differences diverts attention from what she calls “real diversity”—race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other demographic categories.

But this framing creates a false dichotomy. True diversity is multidimensional. Universities don’t have to choose between identity diversity and intellectual diversity; they need both. A campus with varied demographics but uniform ideas is not truly diverse. It offers only a superficial appearance of openness.

Moreover, ideological diversity often intersects with demographic diversity. Many first-generation students, veterans, and religious minorities hold views outside elite academic orthodoxies. Silencing those perspectives in the name of inclusion is a profound contradiction. It turns diversity into conformity.

Research also shows that diverse groups make better decisions when they include both varied life experiences and varied viewpoints. Ignoring ideological diversity undermines the very goals of inclusion and innovation.

[RELATED: UVA’s Administration Is Stonewalling on Viewpoint Diversity Too]

Thesis 7: Viewpoint Diversity Undermines Trust in Expertise

Finally, Siraganian argues that public trust in universities will erode if institutions are portrayed as politically biased. She suggests that defending the current system, rather than admitting flaws, is the best way to preserve credibility.

This gets the problem exactly backwards. Trust cannot be manufactured by assertion. Americans are not imagining the ideological bias they see in higher education. They witness it in course offerings, campus controversies, and commencement speeches that overwhelmingly lean in one direction.

Pretending there is no bias only deepens cynicism. When citizens see problems dismissed as myths, they assume the entire institution is dishonest. The result is what we see today: plummeting public confidence and growing calls for external oversight.

The path to renewed trust is transparency and reform. A university willing to acknowledge its blind spots and broaden its debates will emerge stronger. A university that doubles down on denial will only isolate itself further.

Conclusion: The Future of Academic Freedom

The publication of “Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity” in Academe is more than just another faculty essay. While it is not an official AAUP policy, its appearance in the association’s flagship magazine signals that these arguments are gaining traction within influential corners of academia. When the nation’s most visible faculty organization gives prominent space to an essay that dismisses the very notion of intellectual diversity, it sends a chilling message to the public: that higher education’s leaders are comfortable defending an ideological monopoly rather than confronting it.

Universities now face a defining choice. They can continue to retreat into insularity, denying what students, parents, and citizens plainly see. They can insist that one dominant worldview is enough and dismiss dissent as dangerous or illegitimate. They can ignore the plummeting levels of public trust and gamble that their endowments and prestige will insulate them from scrutiny.

Or they can choose a different path: to reclaim the spirit of fearless inquiry and robust debate that once made American universities the envy of the world. This means more than vague calls for “tolerance” or procedural neutrality. It requires tangible reforms—transparent hiring processes, protection for dissenting scholars, deliberate efforts to foster debate across ideological lines, and a renewed commitment to institutional neutrality so that campuses remain open to all students and ideas.

Viewpoint diversity is not a threat to higher education. It is its lifeline. Without it, the very conditions that make academic freedom meaningful will wither. A campus where only one set of ideas can be safely expressed is not a marketplace of ideas; it is an echo chamber. And echo chambers, like monopolies, ultimately collapse under the weight of their own stagnation.

If universities refuse to change, they will not only lose the public’s confidence but also invite external control. Legislators and regulators will step in, often clumsily, to impose the balance that institutions failed to create themselves. The autonomy and freedom universities claim to prize will vanish, not because of those demanding reform, but because of those who refused to act when they had the chance.

The future of higher education will be decided by how it answers this challenge. Openness or orthodoxy. Argument or dogma. Renewal or decline.

Universities must remember their purpose: to seek truth through the contest of ideas, to educate free citizens rather than train ideological foot soldiers, and to serve a society that desperately needs places where honest disagreement is still possible.

Anything less would not just be a betrayal of academic freedom. It would be the abandonment of the university’s very mission itself.

Image by Joeycheung on Adobe; Asset ID# 1317929549