To the editor:
Pluralism, understood as the active and productive involvement of diversity, is essential to the integrity of diverse institutions and societies. In “Pluralism U” (Oct. 10, 2024), my friend and colleague Eboo Patel writes that pluralism understands the development of public goods as reducing prejudice and strengthening social cohesion as a whole. Colleges and universities bring together diverse groups of people around the common goal of advancing knowledge through teaching and learning. To do that well, they must also pursue abundance.
However, it is one thing to pursue pluralism and another to make it the goal and purpose of a university. Patel’s proposal fails to recognize this distinction. In that misunderstanding he posits the “university of freedom of speech” and the “university of pluralism” as alternatives, arguing for the supremacy of one over the other. What he misses is that both freedom of speech and pluralism are important values ​​within the university. In fact, a good understanding of their place within university life shows how they complement each other while working in different fields—freedom of expression is about regulations, while pluralism emphasizes culture. Although a good university needs both, neither free speech nor pluralism should be the goal.
Patel seems to falsely believe that the University of Chicago has made free speech its telos. Referring to Jonathan Haidt’s portrayal of other teloses of the university, Patel fails to see that the difference is between social justice and truth, not social justice and free speech, writing that “Chicago has become a university of free speech, providing a clear alternative to what Jonathan Haidt called the emergence of a ‘university of social justice. ‘ in the last ten years.” That misunderstanding then creates a fictional film about UChicago, where Patel offers a bright alternative to Pluralism U.
The truth is not so complicated. Truth, the knowledge-seeking end of the university, has always been the telos derived from the UChicago motto. With Tom Ginsburg, I edited a book on the University of Chicago tradition that makes all of this very clear. Although an interesting read, you don’t need to affirm Jamesian pluralism against Hegelian monism, or offer a taxonomy of pluralism to see this. Nor should UChicago in its official capacity take Patel’s advice to “follow in the footsteps of one of its early luminaries.” [John Dewey] and declare itself as a pluralistic university,” as it should follow the footsteps of neoliberal economics or neoconservative politics.
The whole point of a university committed to the pursuit of knowledge is to set the right conditions for a scholarly community that debates the merits of different schools of thought, theories and practices. Doing it right means do plural. But to take any school of thought and legitimize it as the mission and purpose of the university is to create a belief that really stifles the free exchange of ideas. Planting the flag of Pluralism U will, ironically, destroy the spirit of pluralism and harm the proper research work of the university. I think John Dewey wouldn’t be too happy.
Universities, like any institution, have competing values. Yet there must be one final telos. Aristotle defined the ultimate telos as that which is always pursued for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else. However the university chooses to put it, that conclusion must always be knowledge and truth. Free speech is the first operating principle of UChicago, necessary to achieve that mission. It just so happens that this involves the effective, productive interaction of multiple variables. Where is the contradiction in that?
Source link
