feel a need to conceal their views on social policy issues and / or their religious / moral beliefs , or otherwise self-censor , in order to avoid more subtle and less detectable forms of discrimination from others who are intolerant of their views or beliefs . See Whittington , supra , at 5-6 .
For students , according to a 2021 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ( FIRE ), over 80 % of student respondents reported self-censoring their viewpoints on campus at least some of the time , and 21 % said they censor themselves often . 2021 College Free Speech Rankings : What ’ s the Climate for Free Speech on America ’ s College Campuses , FIRE , https :// www . thefire . org / the-2021-college-freespeech-rankings .
At the faculty level , concerns that may deter one ’ s exercise of academic freedom or open self-identification as a social conservative include hiring , promotion , and tenure processes and potential adverse treatment stemming from the ideological biases of key decision-makers . There have recently been several excellent empirical studies conducted by legal academics reflecting conservatives are heavily underrepresented on law school faculties across the country , compared not only to the general U . S . population but also to the legal profession at large . See Adam Bonica , Adam Chilton , Kyle Rozema , & Maya Sen , The Legal Academy ’ s Ideological Uniformity , 47 J . LEGAL STUD . 1 , 2-3 , 21-23 , ( 2018 ) ( comprehensive study of more than 10,000 law professors , finding the group distributed as 85 % liberal to 15 % conservative , with 54 % of the conservative professors rated as moderate conservatives compared to 27 % of the liberal professors rated as moderate liberals ), https :// scholar . harvard . edu / files / msen / files / law-profideology . pdf ; see also James Lindgren , The Religious Beliefs , Practices , and Experiences of Law Professors , 15 U . ST . THOMAS L . J . 342 , 356 ( 2019 ) ( empirical data analysis showing “ those with graduate and professional degrees are much closer in their religious preferences , beliefs , and practices to ordinary Americans than are law professors ”), https :// ir . stthomas . edu / ustlj / vol15 / iss2 / 3 /.
Additional hindrances to faculty ’ s exercise of genuine academic freedom may include legitimate fears that student complaints about a faculty member ’ s positions on social issues or religious / moral beliefs that are deemed offensive , published academic writings , or freedom of speech in the classroom will not be addressed in an unbiased manner by campus or law school administrators based on their viewpoints . See , e . g ., Meriwether v . Hartop , 992 F . 3d 492 ( 6th Cir . 2021 ) ( concluding public university faculty member stated a claim for Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion violations after university disciplined him for declining to comply with mandated classroom speech policy , based on his religious objections concerning gender ideology ), https :// scholar . google . com / scholar _ case ? case = 4806728731935996995 & hl = en & as _ sdt = 6 & as _ vis = 1 & oi = scholarr ; see also Josh Blackman , In Defense of Professor Lee Strang , REASON ( Apr . 29 , 2021 ) ( recounting incident at a public university in which a highly accomplished and well-respected law professor received an “ Inclusive Excellence Award ” by nomination of numerous law students ; almost 1,000 university students then signed an online petition demanding revocation of the award based on objections to the professor ’ s views about a U . S . Supreme Court case , Lawrence v . Texas , expressed in an opinion column published as a law student 18 years prior ; university officials declined to rescind the award , but said in the future they would “ be sure we take a comprehensive approach in selecting the recipients to ensure their bodies of work represent our diversity and inclusion values ”), https :// reason . com / volokh / 2021 / 04 / 29 / in-defense-of-professorlee-strang .
The ultimate goal in many of these “ cancellation ” efforts , especially when directed at an individual student or faculty member , is to intimidate others into silence for fear they too will be subjected to a variety of potential professional or reputational attacks , simply for expressing viewpoints , or even being known to hold beliefs , which are regarded by others as offensive . See , e . g ., Turley , supra . In these situations , students or colleagues expressing support for the rights and character of the “ target ” also may be treated by the ideologically aggrieved as deserving of condemnation and / or retaliation for doing so . So even friends and potential allies – who might even disagree on the merits but agree on principles of freedom – might decide to say nothing . But such occasions are precisely when integrity and loyalty to those principles – and courage in standing in solidarity with those who are wronged and whose freedoms are jeopardized – are necessary for liberty and justice to prevail in academia .
As I return to faculty in July 2022 , I have full confidence in UND President Andrew Armacost and UND Vice President of Academic Affairs and Provost Eric Link – and hopeful expectation for the next Dean of UND School of Law – to make steadfast and courageous leadership decisions that are true to UND ’ s enduring values and principles of academic freedom ; to stand firmly in defense of First Amendment and other legal protections for the individual liberties of its students , staff , and faculty ; and to respect , promote , and provide ample space for expression of diverse ideological viewpoints by all members of the UND Law community .
WINTER 2022 27