Taking Seriously Campus Debates Surrounding Invited Speakers: Open-Mindedness and the Ethics of Inquiry in Higher Education

Author:

Taylor Rebecca M.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Abstract

Context: College campuses in the United States are currently engaged in public and ongoing negotiation of the value and limits of free speech in educational contexts. Responses to invited campus speakers from students, faculty, and campus leaders point to diverging perspectives on the roles and responsibilities of higher education institutions and their members as communities of inquiry. Considering these perspectives raises questions about the epistemic aims of colleges and universities. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to investigate perspectives on the ethics of inquiry and on the value and demands of open-mindedness in higher education. Specifically, I examined one case of an invited campus speaker who sparked considerable debate—Charles Murray’s invited talk at Middlebury College in 2017. Research Design: This study employs the methods of empirically engaged philosophy, a philosophical approach to inquiry that engages with empirical evidence in considering educational aims and implications for institutional structures and policies. I apply conceptual tools stemming from the philosophical theories of knowledge and justice to a thematic content analysis of public statements made by faculty, administrators, and students in the Middlebury case. Conclusions or Recommendations: Through analysis of this campus speaker case, I observed two alternative perspectives on the ethics of inquiry—rational individualism and just collectivism. These two perspectives shared a number of common commitments, including the importance of cultivation of the mind as a primary aim in higher education; the value of open-mindedness, debate, and protest in the pursuit of truth; and the importance of justice, equality, and inclusion. They diverged in their epistemic orientations (individual vs. collective responsibility), their views on the proper bounds of open debate within an institution oriented toward truth-seeking, and what virtuous open-mindedness requires of individuals and collectives. This study contributes to a contemporary understanding of the unique ethical responsibilities of colleges and universities as inquiring organizations, whose members may hold divergent epistemological orientations. By investigating the relationship between open-mindedness, inquiry, and justice in contemporary public discourse in higher education, this study addresses a need for deeper engagement with the philosophical foundations of higher education.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Reference46 articles.

1. Reconciling Open-Mindedness and Belief

2. Epistemic Injustice and Collective Wrongdoing: Introduction to Special Issue

3. American Legislative Exchange Council. (2018, December 26). Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act (amended). https://www.alec.org/model-policy/forming-open-and-robust-university-minds-forum-act/

4. Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions

5. Arpaly N. (2011). Open-mindedness as a moral virtue. American Philosophical Quarterly, 48(1), 75–85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23025075

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3