Grassley Questions Universities on Free Speech Concerns

September 25, 2019

Dr. Vincent E. Price
Office of the President
Duke University
207 Allen Building
Box 90001
Durham, North Carolina 27708-0001

Dear Dr. Price:

The United States Senate Committee on Finance has exclusive jurisdiction within the U.S. Senate over matters of federal taxation, and as its chairman I am committed to making sure the United States' tax laws are administered fairly and effectively. As part of that commitment, it is my job to make sure that entities exempt from tax are fulfilling their tax-exempt purposes. As you are surely aware, Duke University is an educational institution exempt from tax by way of 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) and, according to its Form 990 for year 2016,

The mission of Duke University is to provide a superior liberal education to undergraduate students, attending not only to their intellectual growth but also to their development as adults committed to high ethical standards and full participation as leaders in their communities . . . to advance the frontiers of knowledge and contribute boldly to the international community of scholarship; to promote an intellectual environment built on a commitment to free and open inquiry . . . and to promote a deep appreciation for the range of human difference and potential, a sense of the obligations and rewards and citizenship, and a commitment to learning, freedom and truth.¹

Unfortunately, over the past year I have read a variety of media reports discussing incidents in higher education involving faculty suffering difficulties with or expressing concerns about teaching or researching topics that might challenge or encourage critical thinking about the conventional wisdom or a popular ideology of the day. Recently in the Wall Street Journal, former Yale Law School dean and current professor Anthony Kronman criticized U.S. higher education for failing to live up to its purpose of “preserving, within the larger democratic order, islands of culture devoted to the undemocratic values of excellence and truth.”² If this is true, it strikes at the heart of why U.S. universities are generally exempt from tax. In a case involving a college's tax-exempt status, the U.S. Supreme Court described the reason for tax exemption in this way: “Charitable exemptions are justified on the basis that the exempt entity confers a public benefit — a benefit which the society or the community may not itself choose or be able to provide, or which supplements and advances the work of public institutions already supported by tax revenues.”³ The Association of American Universities (AAU) describes the tax-exempt purpose in the context of higher education as “fundamental to fostering the productive and civic capacity of [the Nation's] citizens.”⁴ Prof. Kronman invokes Tocqueville to describe this purpose as challenging “the instinct to believe what others do in order to avoid the labor and risk of thinking for oneself."⁵ I agree with both the AAU and Prof. Kronman. Students who can work and think critically for themselves are best equipped to tackle the most difficult challenges we face and participate fully and effectively in our democracy.

A fundamental piece of this democracy-enabling purpose is that college and university professors should be free to teach and research — and students should be free to learn — to the best of their abilities in defiance of an undiscerning “instinct to believe what others do.” The United States' higher education has long been the envy of the world for its ability to do just that. This letter respectfully requests information regarding the university's commitment to creating such an educational environment in which its faculty can teach topics and take positions on matters that defy conventional wisdom and challenge orthodoxies in necessary but perhaps uncomfortable ways, what Duke University describes as “a commitment to free and open inquiry.”

It is my understanding that the recently completed academic year was the last of 20 years that Prof. Evan Charney was an associate professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. I understand Prof. Charney to have been a non-tenured professor at Duke with a five-year contract that concluded with the 2018-19 academic year. I also understand that Duke chose in April 2018 to not renew Prof. Charney's contract. According to Prof. Charney,

The end of the spring semester marks the 20th anniversary of my professorship at Duke, first as an assistant professor and then as an associate professor of the practice at the Sanford School of Public Policy. During this time, I regularly taught the required ethics class for all undergraduate public policy majors. I won multiple teaching awards, consistently received scores on student teaching evaluations above the school average and, in a Duke Chronicle poll of undergraduates, was ranked as one of the three most popular professors at Duke University for several years.

Therefore, I was blindsided last April when informed that my contract would not be renewed, particularly given that for the past five years (I was on a five-year renewable contract) I was never informed of any problem with any aspect of my performance. Nor was I given an evaluation, despite a change to the Duke bylaws in 2017 mandating such reviews (see here).

When word of the non-renewal of my contract got out, a letter written in my defense, signed by 100 former students, was published in the Duke Chronicle, and these same students and others began a letter-writing campaign imploring the Sanford administration to reconsider their decision.

Last April, I filed a complaint with the Faculty Hearing Committee (FLIC), a university-wide committee tasked with hearing faculty complaints on matters such as tenure and contract renewal. In their written report, they made clear (as Sanford never did) the actual reason for the loss of my job: Dissatisfaction with my “classroom performance.” Specifically, according to Sanford:

Professor Charney's tendency to provoke negative reactions, and perhaps harm, among some students in the classroom due to his confrontational teaching style — a style that had a tendency to be polarizing among students, particularly in a required Sanford course in which not all students could choose to have Professor Charney as an instructor.

Prof. Charney continues in this statement, which is attached to this letter in full, to discuss his belief that his contract with Duke was not renewed on the basis of a handful of student complaints in one class that discussed on-campus racism. Prof. Charney concludes his statement with the following:

What happened to me is being repeated at colleges and universities throughout the country. Unfortunately, a growing number of university students equate being made uncomfortable in the classroom with being “harmed.” And in this they are encouraged by a growing number of faculty and administrators who view the mission of the university as more about shielding students from such “harm” (for the sake of “inclusivity”) and less about meaningful education. In the “surveillance university, ” students are encouraged to report on the transgressions of faculty, and in what has been called an impulse of “vindictive protectiveness," faculty are judged guilty and harshly punished.⁶

The purpose of this letter is not to re-litigate Duke University's decision not to renew Prof. Charney's contract nor is it to question the adequacy of procedures afforded to Prof. Charney in the wake of that non-renewal. However, Prof. Charney more generally raises serious concerns about the state of higher education. In his statement listed above, Prof. Charney quotes from a written report of a Faculty Hearing Committee, which he purports to be “a university-wide committee tasked with hearing faculty complaints on matters such as tenure and contract renewal.” That report, which is also attached in full to this letter, substantively concludes as follows:

Professor Charney's complaint argues that the criticisms of his classroom performance, and thus the decision not to renew his appointment, really had io do with his “radical free speech” approach, in which he forced his students to discuss controversial viewpoints on hotly contested issues of politics and public policy. The panel finds no evidence, however, that anyone at Sanford objected to Professor Charney's raising of any particular issue, or expression of any particular viewpoint, in his classroom. Indeed, Professor Charney stressed that he intentionally introduces provocative views on all sides of issues and that students would have difficulty determining his personal views.

The issue was not what Professor Charney discussed but how he handled discussion of difficult and emotional issues with and among students. Professor Charney perhaps could have made more effort to learn to manage classroom discussion of difficult topics in a manner that would have left all students feeling fully heard and respected. But, again, that is not a matter for this Committee. Sanford was entitled, wisely or not, to choose a classroom environment for itself in which no student was left feeling mistreated by an instructor. Whether students or faculty, or both, should adapt their sensitivities and behavior, be separated from curricula or even departments and schools, or simply be left to their own devices in such situations, are pedagogical questions outside the jurisdiction of the Faculty Hearing Committee.⁷

I have the following questions about this matter:

I also ask for responses to the following questions about what Duke University describes as its Bias Response Advisory Committee. According to the university's website, “Duke Student Affairs has established a Bias Response Advisory Committee to advise the Vice President for Student Affairs when allegations of bias-related incidents may impact the Duke community.”⁸ One of the purported missions of the Bias Response Advisory Committee is to “make recommendations for educational interventions to help the larger University community deepen awareness and fluency on the diversity of human experience.”⁹ Furthermore, according to Duke's website, a “bias incident” is defined as

an act or behavior motivated by the offender's bias against the identity of an individual or community. Bias occurs whether the act is intentional or unintentional and may be directed toward an individual or group. A bias incident may take the form of a verbal interaction, cyber-interaction, physical interaction, or interaction with property. Bias often contributes to or creates an unsafe/unwelcoming environment.¹⁰

In discussing university discipline of those who in engage in “bias-related incidents,” that website states,

The University takes seriously its responsibility to appropriately balance its core values of protecting individual freedoms (e.g, freedom of speech, artistic expression, freedom of association, academic freedom) and ensuring equal and fair treatment of all. These values may sometimes be in conflict. There are many considerations when determining whether bias-related conduct violates the University's expectations of members of our community. In so doing, the University is always mindful that academia is a unique place where the exchange of ideas, robust debate and artistic expression are critical to the University's teaching and research missions. Investigation and adjudication of possible violations of university policy as the result of reported bias-related incidents are handled by the Office of Student Conduct.¹¹

According to that website, Duke “[s]tudents affirm their commitment to foster this climate by signing a pledge that includes taking constructive action if they witness or know about behavior they perceive to be inconsistent with the [Duke Community Standard], which may include violation of university policies.”¹²

My questions about Duke University's Bias Response Advisory Committee are as follows:

This is to ask that you respond to the Committee no later than October 25, 2019. Furthermore, please answer the questions on a question-by-question basis, indicating which questions you are answering. Of course, while the Finance Committee has a responsibility to ensure the tax laws are administered fairly and effectively, I do not wish to interfere with the legitimate exercise of Duke's academic freedom and I would certainly invite a discussion of that as well, if you are so inclined. Should you have any questions, please contact John Schoenecker or Quinton Brady at (202) 224-4515. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee

September 25, 2019

Lawrence S. Bacow
President, Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear President Bacow:

The United States Senate Committee on Finance has exclusive jurisdiction within the U.S. Senate over matters of federal taxation, and as its chairman I am committed to making sure the United States' tax laws are administered fairly and effectively. As part of that commitment, it is my job to make sure that entities exempt from tax are fulfilling their tax-exempt purposes. As you are surely aware, Harvard University is an educational institution exempt from tax by way of 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).

Unfortunately, over the past year I have read a variety of media reports discussing incidents in higher education involving faculty suffering difficulties with or expressing concerns about teaching or researching topics that might challenge or encourage critical thinking about the conventional wisdom or a popular ideology of the day. Recently in the Wall Street Journal, former Yale Law School dean and current professor Anthony Kronman criticized U.S. higher education for failing to live up to its purpose of “preserving, within the larger democratic order, islands of culture devoted to the undemocratic values of excellence and truth.”¹ If this is true, it strikes at the heart of why U.S. universities are generally exempt from tax. In a case involving a college's tax-exempt status, the U.S. Supreme Court described the reason for tax exemption in this way: “Charitable exemptions are justified on the basis that the exempt entity confers a public benefit — a benefit which the society or the community may not itself choose or be able to provide, or which supplements and advances the work of public institutions already supported by tax revenues.”² The Association of American Universities (AAU) describes the tax-exempt purpose in the context of higher education as “fundamental to fostering the productive and civic capacity of [the Nation's] citizens,”³ Prof. Kronman invokes Tocqueville to describe this purpose as challenging“ 'the instinct to believe what others do in order to avoid the labor and risk of thinking for oneself.”⁴ I agree with both the AAU and Prof. Kronman. Students who can work and think critically for themselves are best equipped to tackle the most difficult challenges we face and participate fully and effectively in our democracy.

A fundamental piece of this democracy-enabling purpose is that college and university professors should be free to teach and research — and students should be free to learn — to the best of their abilities in defiance of an undiscerning “instinct to believe what others do.” The United States' higher education has long been the envy of the world for its ability to do just that. This letter respectfully requests information regarding the university's commitment to creating such an educational environment in which its faculty can teach topics and take positions on matters that defy conventional wisdom and challenge orthodoxies in necessary but perhaps uncomfortable ways.

As you are aware, Harvard College recently declined to continue its relationship with Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., and his wife, Stephanie Robinson, as faculty deans of Harvard's undergraduate house, Winthrop House. According to the New York Times, Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Robinson had held such positions since 2009, but Mr. Sullivan attracted controversy this past January when he joined the criminal defense team for disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein.⁵ Apparently at that point, many Harvard students protested Mr. Sullivan's continued position as faculty dean of Winthrop House, and vandals even spray-painted graffiti around the Harvard campus expressing a similar view. According to another report in the New York Times, such graffiti included statements of, “Down w Sullivan!” “Our rage is self-defense,” and “Whose side are you on?”⁶

In a letter dated May 11, 2019, Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana explained his decision to not renew Mr. Sullivan's and Ms. Robinson's deanships in the following way:

My decision not to renew the Faculty Deans was informed by a number of considerations. Over the last few weeks, students and staff have continued to communicate concerns about the climate in Winthrop House to the College. The concerns expressed have been serious and numerous. The actions that have been taken to improve the climate have been ineffective, and the noticeable lack of faculty dean presence during critical moments has further deteriorated the climate in the House. I have concluded that the situation in the House is untenable.⁷

This past June, Mr. Sullivan responded to his dismissal as faculty dean of Winthrop House with an op-ed in the New York Times in which he wrote,

In May, Harvard College announced that it would not renew the appointment of me and my wife, Stephanie Robinson, as faculty deans of Winthrop House, one of Harvard's undergraduate residential houses, because lam one of the lawyers who represented the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein in advance of his coming sexual assault trial. The administration's decision followed reports by some students that they felt "unsafe" in an institution led by a lawyer who would take on Mr. Weinstein as a client.

. . . 

I would hope that any student who felt unsafe as a result of my representation of Mr. Weinstein might, after a reasoned discussion of the relevant facts, question whether his or her feelings were warranted. But Harvard was not interested in having that discussion. Nor was Harvard interested in facilitating conversations about the appropriate role of its faculty in addressing sexual violence and the tension between protecting the rights of the criminally accused and treating survivors of sexual violence with respect.

Instead, the administration capitulated to protesters. Given that universities are supposed to be places of considered and civil discourse, where people are forced to wrestle with difficult, controversial and unfamiliar ideas, this is disappointing.

Harvard has been silent in other disappointing ways. Not long ago, I was taking my 9-year-old son to school when we saw that "Down with Sullivan" had been spray-painted on the wall abutting our home. I had to explain to my son that representing unpopular clients serves an important constitutional role in our democracy and that I had done nothing wrong. As you might imagine, it was hard to see my son read that piece of graffiti.

The administration said and did nothing in response to the vandalism. Yet again, reasoned discourse lost out to raw feelings.⁸

To be clear, it is generally Harvard College's business as to what faculty members it employs and how it employs them, and to the extent Mr. Sullivan's and Ms. Robinson's dismissals from Winthrop House were the result of individual or human resources-related reasons, they are none of my business nor the business of the Finance Committee. Moreover, this letter is certainly not about Harvey Weinstein. The allegations made against him are heinous and disgusting, and I am grateful he will face justice. But this episode raises significant concerns that have implications for the state of tax-exempt higher education in the United States and how it is preparing the next generation of our Nation's leaders. To that end, 1 have the following questions:

This is to ask that you respond to the Committee no later than October 25, 2019. Furthermore, please answer the questions on a question-by-question basis, indicating which questions you are answering. Of course, while the Finance Committee has a responsibility to ensure the tax laws are administered fairly and effectively, I do not wish to interfere with the legitimate exercise of Harvard's academic freedom and I would certainly invite a discussion of that as well, if you are so inclined. Should you have any questions, please contact John Schoenecker or Quinton Brady at (202) 224-4515. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee

September 25, 2019

Dr. Cristle Collins Judd
President
Sarah Lawrence College
1 Mead Way
Bronxville, New York 10708

Dear Dr. Judd:

The United States Senate Committee on Finance has exclusive jurisdiction within the U.S. Senate over matters of federal taxation, and as its chairman I am committed to making sure the United States' tax laws are administered to fairly and effectively. As part of that commitment, it is my job to make sure that entities exempt from tax are fulfilling their tax-exempt purposes. As you are surely aware, Sarah Lawrence College is an educational institution exempt from tax by way of 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) and, according to its Form 990 for year 2016, the college's “unique educational practices, including unparalleled time with faculty, aim at preparing the whole student to solve problems in new ways, to cross disciplinary boundaries, and to think and act independently as they become protagonists on the world stage.”¹

Unfortunately, over the past year I have read a variety of media reports discussing incidents in higher education involving faculty suffering difficulties with or expressing concerns about teaching or researching topics that might challenge or encourage critical thinking about the conventional wisdom or a popular ideology of the day. Recently in the Wall Street Journal, former Yale Law School dean and current professor Anthony Kronman criticized U.S. higher education for failing to live up to its purpose of “preserving, within the larger democratic order, islands of culture devoted to the undemocratic values of excellence and truth.”² If this is true, it strikes at the heart of why U.S. universities are generally exempt from tax. In a case involving a college's tax-exempt status, the U.S. Supreme Court described the reason for tax exemption in this way: “Charitable exemptions are justified on the basis that the exempt entity' confers a public benefit — a benefit which the society or the community may not itself choose or be able to provide, or which supplements and advances the work of public institutions already supported by tax revenues.”³ The Association of American Universities (AAU) describes the tax-exempt purpose in the context of higher education as “fundamental to fostering the productive and civic capacity of [the Nation's] citizens.”⁴ Prof. Kronman invokes Tocqueville to describe this purpose as challenging “the instinct to believe what others do in order to avoid the labor and risk of thinking for oneself.”⁵ I agree with both the AAU and Prof. Kronman. Students who can work and think critically for themselves are best equipped to tackle the most difficult challenges we face and participate fully and effectively in our democracy.

A fundamental piece of this democracy-enabling purpose is that college and university professors should be free to teach and research — and students should be free to learn — to the best of their abilities in defiance of an undiscerning “instinct to believe what others do.” The United States' higher education has long been the envy of the world for its ability to do just that. This letter respectfully requests information regarding the university's commitment to creating such an educational environment in which its faculty can teach topics and take positions on matters that defy conventional wisdom and challenge orthodoxies in necessary but perhaps uncomfortable ways, what Sarah Lawrence College refers to as “preparing the whole student . . . to think and act independently as they become protagonists on the world stage.” This letter respectfully requests information regarding the college's fulfillment of that asserted non-profit purpose.

As you are aware, last fall the New York Times published a commentary authored by Sarah Lawrence College professor Samuel J. Abrams in which he discussed the rising influence of non-teaching college administrators on campus and what he perceived to be an ideological imbalance toward political liberalism among such administrators across the United States.⁶ In that commentary, Prof. Abrams listed various liberal-to-conservative ratios among non-teaching administrators at colleges in different parts of the country, such as 25-to-l in New England and 16-to-l on the West Coast and in the Southeast.⁷ He concluded his commentary with,

This warped ideological distribution among college administrators should give our students and their families pause. To students who are in their first semester at school, I urge you not to accept unthinkingly what your campus administrators are telling you. Their ideological imbalance, coupled with their agenda-setting power, threatens the free and open exchange of ideas, which is precisely what we need to protect in higher education in these politically polarized times?⁸

The purpose of this letter is not to discuss the statistics, or even the conclusions discussed by Prof. Abrams in his commentary. Rather, this letter specifically asks questions about events that are reported to have transpired after the publication of that commentary. According to one account, as partially reprinted below (and attached to this letter in its entirety),

After penning an op-ed for The New York Times decrying the ideological homogeneity of his campus administration, a conservative-leaning professor at Sarah Lawrence College discovered intimidating messages — including demands that he quit his job — on the door of his office. The perpetrators had torn down the door's decorations, which had included pictures of the professor's family.

In the two weeks since the incident, Samuel Abrams, a tenured professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence, has repeatedly asked the college's president, Cristle Collins Judd, to condemn the perpetrators' actions and reiterate her support for free speech. But after sending a tepid campus-wide email that mentioned the importance of free expression, but mostly stressed her “commitment to diversity and inclusive excellence,” Judd spoke with Abrams over the phone; according to him, she accused him of “attacking” members of the community.

“She said I had created a hostile work environment,” Abrams said in an interview with Reason. “If [the op-ed] constitutes hate speech, then this is not a world that I want to be a part of.”

What's more, when the two met in person, Judd implied that Abrams was on the market for a new job, he said.

“I am not on the job market,” he said. “I am tenured, I live in New York. Why would I go on the job market?"

Abrams interpreted Judd's remarks as a suggestion that he might be better off leaving the school. Judd did not respond to a request for comment.

That article goes on to describe other events on campus as follows:

Many Sarah Lawrence students and alumni did not appreciate Abrams calling attention to this issue.

“There was an emergency student senate meeting, to my knowledge,” said Abrams. It was his understanding that the meeting produced a declaration calling for him to be stripped of tenure and dismissed from the college. Judd sent a campus-wide email about the meeting, which she described as "not only thoughtful, but thought-provoking.”

"The Senate asked me to publicly affirm that Black Lives Matter, that LBGT+ Lives matter, and that Women's Justice matters,” wrote Judd in the email. "I emphatically did.”

The student senate did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Abrams' office door was vandalized on October 16, hours after the op ed's publication. The perpetrators posted a sign on the door that read, "Our right to exist is not 'ideological,' 'a*****e' and was signed “transsexual [EPITHET],” Another flyer demanded that he apologize to residence life staff and the director of campus diversity, students of color, queer students, trans students, and other marginalized persons. Multiple messages instructed Abrams to “quit” and one told him to “go teach somewhere else, maybe Charlottesville."

Abrams believes the perpetrators tried to break into his office; some of his books had fallen off their shelves as if the sign-posters had slammed the door and the walls.

“I'm really shaken,” he said.

Abrams' dealings with Judd have further unnerved him. During their conversation, she implied that he should have cleared his public writings with her before submitting them, something he described as unacceptable.

Several of Abrams' colleagues met with Judd to discuss the vandalism and express their view that such acts could not be tolerated. Judd agreed, but did not pledge to take any further actions. These professors thought she seemed scared that the students might hold more protests, creating a public relations disaster, according to Abrams.⁹

I have the following questions about this matter:

This is to ask that you respond to the Committee no later than October 25, 2019. Furthermore, please answer the questions on a question-by-question basis, indicating which questions you are answering. Of course, while the Finance Committee has a responsibility to ensure the tax laws are administered fairly and effectively, I do not wish to interfere with the legitimate exercise of Sarah Lawrence College's academic freedom and I would certainly invite a discussion of that as well, if you are so inclined. Should you have any questions, please contact John Schoenecker or Quinton Brady at (202) 224-4515. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee

September 25, 2019

The Rev. Peter M. Donohue, O.S.A.
President
Villanova University
800 E. Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085

Dear Rev. Donohue:

The United States Senate Committee on Finance has exclusive jurisdiction within the U.S. Senate over matters of federal taxation, and as its chairman I am committed to making sure the United States' tax laws are administered to fairly and effectively. As part of that commitment, it is my job to make sure that entities exempt from tax are fulfilling their tax-exempt purposes. As you are surely aware, Villanova University is an educational institution exempt from tax by way of 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) and, according to its Form 990 for year 2016, “Villanova University is a Catholic Augustinian community of higher education, committed to excellence and distinction in the discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge[.]”¹

Unfortunately, over the past year I have read a variety of media reports discussing incidents in higher education involving faculty suffering difficulties with or expressing concerns about teaching or researching topics that might challenge or encourage critical thinking about the conventional wisdom or a popular ideology of the day. Recently in the Wall Street Journal, former Yale Law School dean and current professor Anthony Kronman criticized U.S. higher education for failing to live up to its purpose of “preserving, within the larger democratic order, islands of culture devoted to the undemocratic values of excellence and truth.”² If this is true, it strikes at the heart of why U.S. universities are generally exempt from tax. In a case involving a college's tax-exempt status, the U.S. Supreme Court described the reason for tax exemption in this way: “Charitable exemptions are justified on the basis that the exempt entity confers a public benefit — a benefit which the society or the community may not itself choose or be able to provide, or which supplements and advances the work of public institutions already supported by tax revenues.”³ The Association of American Universities (AAU) describes the tax-exempt purpose in the context of higher education as “fundamental to fostering the productive and civic capacity of [the Nation's] citizens.”⁴ Prof. Kronman invokes Tocqueville to describe this purpose as challenging “the instinct to believe what others do in order to avoid the labor and risk of thinking for oneself.”⁵ I agree with both the AAU and Prof. Kronman. Students who can work and think critically for themselves are best equipped to tackle the most difficult challenges we face and participate fully and effectively in our democracy.

A fundamental piece of this democracy-enabling purpose is that college and university professors should be free to teach and research — and students should be free to learn — to the best of their abilities in defiance of an undiscerning “instinct to believe what others do.” The United States' higher education has long been the envy of the world for its ability to do just that. This letter respectfully requests information regarding the university's commitment to creating such an educational environment in which its faculty can teach topics and take positions on matters that defy conventional wisdom and challenge orthodoxies in necessary but perhaps uncomfortable ways, what Villanova University describes as a commitment to “excellence and distinction in the discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge.” This letter respectfully requests information regarding the university's fulfillment of that asserted non-profit purpose.

As you are aware, the Wall Street Journal published this past spring a commentary authored by Villanova professors Colleen A. Sheehan and James Matthew Wilson in which they discussed how the university would soon be including “diversity and inclusion” questions on its course and teaching evaluations that students fill out at the end of each semester. According to Profs. Sheehan and Wilson, these evaluations now include “heavily politicized questions such as whether the instructor has demonstrated 'cultural awareness' or created an 'environment free of bias based on individual differences or social identities.'”⁶

Profs. Sheehan and Wilson describe this in further detail:

In short, students are being asked to rate professors according to their perceived agreement with progressive political opinion on bias and identity. Students are also invited to “comment on the instructor's sensitivity to the diversity of the students in the class.” Professors are rated on their “sensitivity" to a student's “biological sex, disability, gender identity, national origin, political viewpoint, race/ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc.” The “etc.” in particular seems like an ominous catchall, as if the sole principle of sound teaching has become “that no student shall be offended."

However well-intentioned, the new assessment of faculty “sensitivity” and “bias” will harm Villanova's mission to provide a liberal education. Professors will now have a powerful incentive to avoid discussion of anything that might be deemed offensive or insensitive to the various social identities and political viewpoints listed (or not listed, by grace of that “etc.”).

A biology professor may avoid teaching about sexual dimorphism for fear of being labeled “insensitive” to “gender identity." Professors of political philosophy, history or literature may avoid introducing the texts of John C. Calhoun, Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass or Flannery O'Connor, for fear their sometimes racially charged language may be interpreted as “insensitivity.” Catholic leaching prizes philosophical reasoning, but one cannot reason with others if the mere posing of an argument could be deemed an act of “bias.”

And what about sensitivity to social identities, given Villanova's Catholic character? Those who teach courses about Catholic doctrine on marriage and the family may now live in fear that their own university will treat such views, and those who teach about them, as insensitive or worse. In fact, the “sensitivity” questions appear almost perfectly designed to stifle Catholic moral teaching in the classroom.

The larger implications are even more disturbing. The new evaluations will allow a professor's professional performance to be recast as a human resources or even a legal problem. Think about it: You can't fire a professor for being conservative, but you certainly can fire him for creating a “hostile work environment." At a minimum, all charges of insensitivity, injustice and bigotry will become part of the faculty's permanent record. How long will it be before professors cease to challenge their students for fear of losing their careers and livelihoods?⁷

A full copy of this commentary is attached to this letter. On April 1, you and Provost Patrick G. Maggitti responded to this commentary with a statement that reads in part (and is attached in full to this letter),

The opinion piece portrays this survey as part of a political litmus test, as an aggressive attempt to target faculty with particular views and as an effort opposed to Villanova's historic Catholic identity and mission. This is untrue. While for some this polarization may be tempting, it fails to offer the kind of perspective that is, and has always been, characteristic of a Villanova education, and the Villanova community as a whole.

Catholic Intellectual tradition is best accomplished through and by a diverse community of scholars and students with a wide variety of viewpoints. Student evaluations are important: Surveying students about their experiences in the classroom is not only a reasonable response, it is the only way to know how well we are meeting the challenge of creating an authentically diverse community of scholars.

Also missing in the op-ed is the thoughtful, planned process that led to the creation and addition of three questions to the regularly administered course evaluations. Through a process that began with student input, then moved through the administration for formation and then to the faculty for evaluation and shaping, three questions were added to the survey. After pilot testing and more evaluation, the questions were added to the standard survey form. Even after the addition of these to the evaluation form, we continue to solicit faculty and student feedback on these questions, and also examine the patterns evident in students' responses to them. Indeed, we have been quite pleased to note that students at Villanova overwhelmingly rated their faculty at the very top of the scale.⁸

I have the following questions about this matter:

I also ask for responses to the following questions about Villanova University's “Bias Response Team.” According to the university's website, when a student experiences an “incident of bias,” he or she may report that incident to the “Bias Response Team,” and then “[a] member of the Bias Response Team will respond to you shortly (usually in 48 hours or less) regarding the information” in that report.⁹

This is to ask that you respond to the Committee no later than October 25, 2019. Furthermore, please answer the questions on a question-by-question basis, indicating which questions you are answering. Of course, while the Finance Committee has a responsibility to ensure the tax laws are administered fairly and effectively, I do not wish to interfere with the legitimate exercise of Villanova's academic freedom and I would certainly invite a discussion of that as well, if you are so inclined. Should you have any questions, please contact John Schoenecker or Quinton Brady at (202) 224-4515. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee