Talk:Heterodox Academy

Article updates for January 2024

I am opening this Request Edit because an initial review started but after I posted replies answering objections for the reviewer, they left a note (at the bottom of this post) saying they had no time to do any further work. Peterjane8675309 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I work for Heterodox Academy and have read Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies. I’m posting this as part of trying to abide by the rules. Thanks for reviewing this proposal.

A.

Add to the History section, third paragraph, as the fourth sentence, that Michael Regnier became executive director in 2022. The information in the article is out of date. The suggested addition names the most recent executive director as reported by a reputable source.

Suggested wording with citation:

In August 2022, Michael Regnier became executive director.

References

B.

Update the Infobox to reflect the name of the executive director as Michael Regnier. It is established above that Regnier became executive director in 2022.

C.

Update the number of members in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the History section reads that membership was last reported at 5,000. The page is out of date and the suggested addition provides the most current information.

Current:

As of early 2023, membership had grown to 5,000.

Suggested new wording with citation:

As of September 2023, membership was around 6,000 students, faculty, and administrators.

References

D.

Update the third sentence of the lead paragraph to reflect the most recent membership numbers for the organization. The information has already been established in the body of the article.

Current:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 5,000 members.

Suggested wording:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 6,000 members.

References

E.

Add after the first sentence of the third paragraph in the Programs and activities section information about the results of a survey that concerns one of the central principles of the Academy, which is why it was widely reported. Aside from the in-depth feature in a cited source, the survey received significant coverage from university-centered publications such as University Business, Inside Higher Ed, and The College Post.

Suggested wording with citation:

In March 2022, Heterodox Academy released the results of a national survey of college students that found a majority polled believed that socio political climates on campuses discouraged the free expression of ideas. More than half of survey participants reported being hesitant to engage in conversation regarding topics considered to be controversial, such as gender, race, or religion.

References

F.

Add to become the fourth paragraph in the Programs and Activities section that the organization began the “Campus Communities” program in 2023. The program is an important example of how the organization is actually going about doing its work. The initiation of 23 separate “Campus Communities” represented a sizable expansion of the organization’s on-the-ground activities and was covered by reputable news sources that focus on higher education.

Suggested wording with citations:

In January 2023, Heterodox Academy began funding a program called “Campus Communities” to promote its principles on college campuses through guest speakers and events with a diversity of viewpoints. The program began with 23 participating university groups.

References

G.

Add to become the fifth paragraph in the Programs and activities section that the organization opened a research center in 2023. The research center is the first physical presence of the organization. Staff includes Wikipedia notable scholars.

Suggested wording with citations:

In September 2023, Heterodox Academy founded the Center for Academic Pluralism, a interdisciplinary research center based in New York City. Inaugural fellows during the 2023-24 academic year included Diana Mutz, a professor of political science, and Elizabeth Weiss, an anthropologist who was formerly at San Jose State University.

References

H.

Add to become the sixth paragraph in the Programs and activities section information about a panel discussion hosted by the organization in 2023. The suggested addition provides information about a decision made by Heterodox to revive an event that was canceled by a mainstream academic association The revival of the panel is a noteworthy example of the work the organization does to promote diverse viewpoints in academia, even when the topics are highly controversial.

Suggested wording with citations:

In November 2023, Heterodox Academy held a controversial panel discussion on the importance of biological sex in anthropological research that had originally been scheduled for the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association and Canadian Anthropological Society, but was canceled following concerns of transphobia. Heterodox said it “uncancelled” the event.

References

Thank you for your time spent on this review. Please let me know if I can offer any clarification. Peterjane8675309 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the request.

For A and B, especially B, it might be better to reduce the content on the executive directors, perhaps completely. These are non-notable persons with no other content about them in the article. Regardless, no need to specify the month of "August".

C: Instead: "As of late 2023, membership had was about 6,000."

D: Remove instead as undue.

E: Decline request. I don't have full access to the Chronicle of Higher Education ref, but from the other ref and backing articles, this pushes HA's narrative over that of the independent sources. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

F: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. If there are references that report on how the program is running rather than it's launch, then this should be revisited. --Hipal (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

G: Decline request. Per NOT, POV, as with F above, but likely to take a much longer time before any results are reported.

H: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. The ref appears less than reliable. --Hipal (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: Thanks for your reply. Can you please review the following responses and then implement anything you’d like to approve? As a COI user, I should not directly edit the page.

For A and B, especially B, it might be better to reduce the content on the executive directors, perhaps completely. These are non-notable persons with no other content about them in the article. Regardless, no need to specify the month of "August".

That makes sense.

C: Instead: "As of late 2023, membership was about 6,000."

Thank you for the suggestion. Paring down the detail is a good idea. Here is the revised sentence:

As of late 2023, membership was about 6,000.

D: Remove instead as undue.

Thank you for this suggestion. It seems very reasonable. Here is the revised request. Please remove the third sentence of the Lead paragraph:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 5,000 members.

Reason for the change:

The most recently available membership numbers do not belong in Lead. Information that is readily subject to change shouldn’t have a prominent place in an overview of the topic. The same information is included in the body of the article; its inclusion in the Lead is WP:UNDUE.

E: Decline request. I don't have full access to the Chronicle of Higher Education ref, but from the other ref and backing articles, this pushes HA's narrative over that of the independent sources.

This is a straightforward reporting of activities of the organization as covered in a highly reputable source. WP:BALANCE does not apply here as that policy is concerned with disputed points of view. That’s not the case here. It’s simply an accounting of the organization’s activities as reported by high quality press. You’ll see very similar accounting of an organization’s activities in both American Civil Liberties Union and The Heritage Foundation.

Please see the relevant excerpt here:

The Real Source of Self-Censorship

March 22,2023, Chronicle of Higher Education Author/Byline: Megan Zahneis

On Wednesday a national survey from Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit membership organization that promotes viewpoint diversity in higher education, became the latest piece of research to shed light on the state of campus discourse, which is typically the stuff of newsmaking incidents or opinion pieces. The results of the surveys are consistent. Contrary to the fears expressed by Rodrigues, which implicitly affix blame to a liberal professoriate, students are more concerned with their peers’ judgment than with their professors’.

(...) Still, the topline data are head-turning: 58.5 percent of students surveyed by Heterodox reported being reluctant to discuss at least one of five controversial topics they were asked about — gender, politics, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

F: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. If there are references that report on how the program is running rather than it's launch, then this should be revisited.

The fact that this program began is noteworthy in-and-of-itself, as evidenced by the fact that it was covered in one of the most prominent sources in education media. It is verifiable encyclopedic content that is presented in a neutral point of view.

G: Decline request. Per NOT, POV, as with F above, but likely to take a much longer time before any results are reported.

This is an event that occurred and its occurrence was covered in independent media sources, thereby making it a noteworthy event in the organization’s history. In asking to wait for “results to be reported,” you seem to be confusing Notability with noteworthiness. Per WP:NOTABILITY, notability guidelines do not apply to the contents of articles.

H: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. The ref appears less than reliable.

The source cited here is a reputable news organization with a full editorial board and an advisory board of prominent national journalists. The publication meets the standards for a Reliable Source on Wikipedia.

Thanks for taking the time to review these responses.Peterjane8675309 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References

I don't have the time to delve into this deeply, but overall this appears to be at odds with POV and NOT. --Hipal (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Declined per Hipal. Quetstar (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Contested New York Times reference

I have tried to add a passage from a New York Times article by Thomas Friedman that is relevant to the Heterodox Academy entry. One editor deleted the passage on the grounds that Friedman's article is not peer-reviewed and that peer-reviewed material exists on the topic. While I am sympathetic to that argument and will certainly add peer reviewed sources, I am not convinced that a New York Times article is redundant simply because peer reviewed material exists on the subject. Another editor, Hipal, justified the deletions by saying that the "ref[erence]" is "poor," but the New York Times is certainly a credible reference. What's more, it is not at all clear why the Beauchamp-Quintana opinion from Vox is appropriate for this entry (see the article's final paragraph), whereas Friedman's NYT opinion is not. The editor has not addressed this inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Speech Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Vox source appears to be directly and explicitly about this subject - the New York Times source merely mentions this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There's more content about Heterodox Academy in 2019 Vox piece by Beauchamp. But the content from the NY Times Friedman piece can't be dismissed as undue as it's substantive and related to central aspects of the subject here. It's certainly due for mention in the body of this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. But I would contest the idea that Friedman "merely mentions" the subject; he uses Heterodox Academy data to support an argument on freedom of thought. Here again is the passage: "In November 2022, the Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit advocacy group, surveyed 1,564 full-time college students ages 18 to 24. The group found that nearly three in five students (59 percent) hesitate to speak about controversial topics like religion, politics, race, sexual orientation and gender for fear of negative backlashes by classmates."

I am not aware of any rule that a valid secondary source needs to be exclusively devoted to a topic before it can be cited on Wikipedia. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such rule. But we are not obligated to cite a source just because it mentions the subject of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"There is no such rule. But we are not obligated to cite a source just because it mentions the subject of an article."

If there is no obligation to include a source, that does not logically entail that there is an obligation to exclude it.

When you say "undertaken by a biased party" in response to Jweiss11, who says that they are biased? You? That seems a tendentious observation for someone who is supposed to be a neutral Wikipedia editor. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's disingenuous for you to remove information from this article that includes sources credibly accusing this organization of bias and also ask another editor "who says that they are biased?"

And Wikipedia editors are in no sense called to be "neutral." We work to make articles neutral in many ways but we are not only allowed to have our own opinions and judgments but we must have them to do this work effectively. And knowing when a particular subject is biased and misuses information and arguments is especially important. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the Quintana and Beauchamp pieces. In fact, I corrected the paraphrase of the Quintana article, noting that liberal professors were more often removed for speech than conservative professors. But leaving these sources in the Wikipedia article while excluding other legitimate sources distorts the picture. That's why I followed your advice and removed them.

What seems disingenuous is to exclude legitimate sources that you happen to disagree with and then claim that an organization is biased simply because you refuse to admit any evidence that might contradict your view. A neat trick, that. In rhetorical terms, this counts as a "petitio principii," a circular argument. I can only hope that valid argument counts for something here--that "consensus" does not mean "how many allies one can enlist in one's own cause." Free speech scholar (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Free speech on campus" is not the subject of this article. (And if it were, there are much better sources than an editorial in a newspaper, especially one that cites a 2-year old survey undertaken by a biased party.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ElKevbo, Freedom of expression in academia is related to the subject of this article. Your comment is analogous to saying "baseball" is not the subject of New York Yankees. What would those other, better sources be, and are they not also biased? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about Heterodox Academy, or should be. Mentions of use of their research is not encyclopedic, at least not without far better references.

The content is:

In a 2024 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman cites Heterodox Academy survey data to support his argument that universities are not doing enough to foster dialogue among students: "In November 2022, the Heterodox Academy ... surveyed 1,564 full-time college students ages 18 to 24. The group found that nearly three in five students (59 percent) hesitate to speak about controversial topics like religion, politics, race, sexual orientation and gender for fear of negative backlashes by classmates."

That is grossly UNDUE, and SOAP. Sanctions apply. This is a huge waste of time. --Hipal (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I would object if someone added or argued for the retention of information in New York Yankees that was only tangentially related to that particular team. Indeed, "baseball" is not the subject of that article. And "freedom of expression in academia" is not the subject of this article.

As to what sources are much better for this article, I'd need to spend some time doing my own research to provide specific recommendations as this is not among my specific scholarly specializations. I would start by looking for longitudinal work done by respected scholars. For example, I think there have been relevant questions included in HERI surveys going back several decades. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

ElKevbo, except the content that Friedman discussed in the NYT is not tangentially related to Heterodox Academy. It is content about Heterodox Academy's research into a subject that is core to their existence, and it offers substance to what the organization actually does, irrespective of whether any given editor here is skeptical of Heterodox Academy's integrity, bias, or competence. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about "a subject that is core to [Heterodox Academy's] existence" - it's about Heterodox Academy. And it's a poor source for that off-topic subject, too. ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The source isn't "poor" and the cited passaged is relevant to Heterodox Academy. Your argument here siloes concepts in a way that strains reason. Per my comparison offered earlier, note that the lead of New York Yankees cites this article: [1]. The analog of your augment here would have us remove the passage "According to Forbes, the Yankees are the second-highest valued sports franchise in the world, after the NFL's Dallas Cowboys, with an estimated value in 2023 of approximately $7.1 billion." because the subject of that article is the New York Yankees, not the valuation of sports franchises across the world. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument here siloes concepts in a way that strains reason. While I wouldn't be so uncivil as to use that language, from my perspective it applies to the arguments for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, that's a reasonable criticism of a weak argument about content. We have substantive, central content about the subject here in an RS. What is uncivil is casting spurious accusations of behavioral violations on another editor simply because they've offered an editorial opinion that differs from yours. You approach here comes off as "if you challenge my arguments, I will try to get you punished". That's pretty hostile. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please FOC. Sanctions apply. The arguments for inclusion seem unreasonable and at odds with content policies. A case for inclusion is not going to be made in this manner. --Hipal (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no rule that a source has to be specifically about the same topic as the wikipedia article citing it, and NYT is a reliable source. It can be used for factual info. If we don't include both positive and negative reactions to this or any other org, that would be favoring one side i.e. WP:Undue. Hi! (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaken, as that's the exact opposite of the false balance provision of the NPOV policy. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Perennial RS the NYT, quoting Pulitzer prize winner Thomas Friedman, is hardly a "fringe theory, or extraordinary claim". Hi! (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

John Clauser won the Nobel prize and denies climate change is real. Should we cite him an article about climate change because he won the Nobel? Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of studies supporting Heterodox Academy's arguments, including those of Knight (affiliated with Columbia University) and Gallup. But they were excluded three years ago because they don't specifically mention Heterodox Academy. Free speech scholar (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And plenty of studies that do not support their arguments.[2] That study, which disputes the claims of Heterodox, was published in 2012 by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) showing that:

Republicans and conservatives, while vastly outnumbered in academia, were, for the most part, successful, happy, and prosperous. Fewer than 2 percent of faculty (Republican or Democratic) reported being the victims of unfair treatment based on their politics. Only 7 percent of Republican faculty believed that discrimination against those with “right-wing” views was a serious problem on their campus, compared with 8 percent of Democratic faculty who expressed concerns about discrimination against those with 'left-wing' views. Asked to consider what they would do if given the opportunity to 'begin your career again,' 91 percent of Democratic faculty and 93 percent of Republican faculty answered that they would 'definitely' or 'probably' want to be a college professor. Similarly, few rightleaning students or administrators claimed to have been the victims of political mistreatment. Like their Democratic counterparts, most were satisfied with their experience in higher education.[3]

Coincidentally, three months after this finding, Jonathan Haidt publishes his "apology" to conservatives, taking the "both sides do it" position.[4] By 2015, he's running Heterodox, which now contradicts the idea published by AAUP just a few years earlier, and he's doing it with people connected to the right-wing conservative movement, who want to promote the idea that conservatives are being censored and discriminated against in academia, even though the research shows the opposite. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Quintana ref

Quintana reference The previous characterization of Quintana's article was inaccurate. PLEASE READ THE QUINTANA PIECE HERE (I cannot transcribe it without violating copyright): > — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free speech scholar (talk • contribs) 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I don't have access. I assume you're referring to [5][6][7] Could you quote sentences/paragraphs from the ref that you feel summarize Quintana's viewpoint on the matter? --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ideology and reception

Because the "Ideology and Reception" section has proved the most contentious in the article, I suggest eliminating it altogether. All legitimate opinions about the organization in bona fide sources ought to be included--or none. Cherry picking yields inaccuracy. Free speech scholar (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to delete the section. Perhaps deletion was premature, but I would point out the following advice by user:ElKevbo in response to a previous edit: "I simply don't think a mention in an op ed merits inclusion in this encyclopedia article [the editor is referring to a New York Times op-ed citing Heterodox Academy] especially on a topic that has been and continues to be the subject of serious study published in peer-reviewed scholarly venues. If other similar material in the article should also be removed on those grounds then you are welcome to remove it."

I did remove similar material on similar grounds, as advised. Both the Quintana and Beauchamp pieces are op-eds. Neither is peer reviewed; indeed, neither is based on peer-reviewed sources. Both pieces are several years old. user:ElKevbo nevertheless objected to their removal. Catch-22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free speech scholar (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The primary objection to the inclusion of the NYT source is that it's not about this subject and only mentions it in passing, not that NYT is not peer-reviewed. I'll have to look into the Chronicle of Higher Ed article later, when I'm on campus or logged into the campus VPN. But the Vox article is about this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I will again quote you back to you, along with my comments for context:

"I am not aware of any rule that a valid secondary source needs to be exclusively devoted to a topic before it can be cited on Wikipedia. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule. But we are not obligated to cite a source just because it mentions the subject of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]"

My response to your reply was as follows: "If there is no obligation to include a source, that does not logically entail that there is an obligation to exclude it."

I also cited a peer-reviewed source and a respected historian of education from a reputable source, both of which referenced Heterodox Academy. These too were deleted, even though a previous editorial consensus (three years ago) approved the addition of them. The criteria for inclusion in this article strike me as shifting and arbitrary. Free speech scholar (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this. The references you want removed look fine, their content directly relevant and DUE. --Hipal (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You continue to address my arguments in a highly selective fashion. Free speech scholar (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that some editors are operating under different rules depending on whether the source in question offers a negative or positive/neutral opinion of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the overall argument in general, namely that, and I paraphrase, "conservative speech is under attack on college campuses" has been deubnked again and again. I read an article last month, whose name I can't recall, that basically traced out the history of it, showing that it's just like the "War on Christmas" that conservatives pull out of their chestnut closet once a year, in other words, a total myth. That's the POV we should address. But it's an incredibly interesting argument in any respects, as it forms the basis for the modern conservative movement, and without it, they wouldn't have the movement in the first place. It's too much for conservatives to even consider that their ideas are unpopular, no, they must create an imaginary threat that prevents them from speaking their minds. That's after all the entire basis of the Powell memo that we all know and love. "Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows!" The great circus continues. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In my view, this editorializing is supremely unhelpful. As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat myself, I don't understand why conservatives in general feel persecuted, but the fact is that they do, especially on college campuses. Indeed, there is some evidence that conservatives are discriminated against in academia; the evidence is contested, but there is no consensus that such discrimination is a "total myth." We should be able to disagree with others politically and yet look at all the available evidence impartially. Anyone who disagrees should probably not be a Wikipedia editor. Free speech scholar (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of Wikipedia editors, you appear to be a single purpose account devoted to editing this singular article. Maybe you should work on something else for a bit? It sounds like you are a bit too close to this subject to be of any help. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, that cuts both ways. High-quality sources generally dismiss Heterodox Academy's arguments as baseless and the outfit as a whole as a culture-war advocacy group; even if you disagree with that, it's WP:FALSEBALANCE to try and shoehorn in low-quality sources or WP:OR in order to support a pre-determined position you personally feel to be "neutral" or to "balance out" higher-quality coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I dispute that these are low-quality sources; repeating a claim does not make it true. But which "high-quality sources" rejecting Heterodox Academy's arguments are you referring to? Free speech scholar (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see any indication that the Chronicle of Higher Education piece is an op-ed; it seems like factual reporting about a dispute over biases on campus and an academic finding relevant to that topic, to me. The important thing is to summarize the paper they describe and to note why it's relevant to the topic - the Chronicle of Higher Education piece is a reasonable WP:SECONDARY source for establishing that context. Also, regarding this re-addition, your summary is incorrect; there was an RFC three years ago that found a consensus to exclude that paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I actually agree with you that the Chronicle piece is a more of a news story than an op-ed; that is, in fact, one reason that I revised the language. But it does report a variety of opinions, none of them peer reviewed.

  On the consensus issue, the citations I posted remained in the article for over a month before you posed the question of their relevance and "arrived at" a consensus to remove them. Consensus is always temporary, of course, depending on allies one is able to gather, and so forth. Indeed, the "consensus" is not as clear-cut as you suggest: I count four out of six people, including you, who would be willing to include the CS Monitor reference, though perhaps in a different section. (I'm excluding my own, recently-added vote from the calculation, even though the vote was never formally closed.) I would like to re-open the question.

  The grounds cited for removal of the material impress me as tenuous. The characterization of the material as "Synth," for example, seems off-base, as this implies that the authors of the articles did not agree with Heterodox Academy's assessment of the present campus climate, when they plainly did agree with it. I would argue that this counts as relevant "reception" history: when conclusions are accepted used to advance an argument, that is germane to reception--to how an organization's ideas are received. Scholars commonly use the term "reception" in the context of citation analysis (see [8]here, here, [9]here--the list could go on). But I don't want to split hairs; perhaps a new section on "Influence" could be created. Free speech scholar (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The line between feature reporting and op-ed is often pretty blurry. I don't have an issue with using the Chronicle of Higher Education piece. The problem is using that piece and the Beauchamp Vox piece, but not using any of the following, which skews the balance of the article:

• John McWhorter in The Atlantic; [10] archive link
• Jonathan Zimmerman in University World News [11]
• Thomas Friedman in the NY Times [12] archive link

Jweiss11 (talk)

I mean, two of those are labeled opinion pieces (the Atlantic Ideas section is opinion), and both of them are from talking heads with no expertise on this topic beyond being broadly aligned with Heterodox's Academy's culture-war mission. There's not much to be gained by listing opinions from a bunch of people whose only qualification on the subject is that they're a cheerleader for its mission; I've always been opposed to opinion pieces from that sort of axe-grindy culture-war type as sources - unless they bring some specific expertise to the table, their agreement with their own side adds nothing. The middle one only mentions Heterodox Academy briefly in passing to quote them uncritically; I'm unsure how it would even be used. And I disagree that the line between feature reporting and op-ed is blurry - at least when it comes to high-quality sources, it is razor-sharp. Reporting undergoes a rigorous fact-checking process; that means that when a source says X, we can say X ourselves in the article voice. Opinion pieces do not (or undergo a much lesser one), which means that an opinion piece by McWhorter or Friedmen reflects nothing but their personal opinions, preferences, gut feelings and so on. In order to include them you need to explain why their opinions in particular matter, which I'm not seeing here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion, it's not like this is highly technical subject matter that requires specialized expertise to comment on intelligently. We're talking about opinion surveys of people in academics. McWhorter and Friedman have no expertise to warrant citation of their pieces, but Beauchamp does? And McWhorter et al are culture-war types, but Vox isn't a culture-war platform? The Jonathan Zimmerman piece was used in the past in the article to simply state that HxA had conducted a survey and to summarize the results of that survey. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is a lot more in the Quintana piece. If it can be used to support mention of Jeffrey Adam Sachs's study, it should also be used to support mention of studies and commentary from HxA and Haidt. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect that Zimmerman is not an expert on the topic--please do your research rather than reaching from your gut. An historian of education, Zimmerman has published books on free speech, campus politics, and the culture wars. He is far more qualified to speak to campus free speech issues than Beauchamp.

Your "cultural warrior" argument is ad hominem and out of place. In fact, it is a transparent attempt to catch anyone who opposes your position in a Catch-22. In practice, your argument amounts to this: "Anyone who cites Heterodox Academy approvingly supports their mission and is therefore a shill for the organization." Or, "You can include content on the favorable reception of Heterodox Academy only if those you are citing don't broadly approve the HxA program. But anyone who regards Heterodox Academy in a favorable light must broadly support their program and, therefore, cannot be cited." Catch-22. That leaves room only for critical opinions.

A third thing: you seem long ago to have formed an opinion of Heterodox Academy as nothing more than a cultural warrior organization that supports conservative causes. It's probably time to update your priors. Some conservative organizations don't agree with your assessment. Free speech scholar (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Pull the other one. Heterodox Academy, like all groups claiming conservatives are being silenced, is tied to the Koch network through their people. We've seen this charade a thousand times. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually posted about Koch contributions to John Tomasi, the current president of HxA, on the Heterodox Academy page. I posted it as a criticism. My post was deleted. (Check the editing history.)

The major point, though, is that you are badly misinformed. Free speech scholar (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not misinformed. Conservatives aren't being silenced anywhere. What is happening is that conservative opinions are unpopular, just like conservative opinions about abortion, education, isolationism, free trade, health care, and immigration, are all unpopular with the general public. To quote Tim Walz, "Nobody asked for this weird crap!" And while I might be slightly upset at Walz for his derogatory comments about vegetarians, I think Walz got it 100% correct here. Nobody is asking for these bad policies, but conservatives are going to keep giving them to us whether we like it or not. To combat this state of affairs, which Powell recognized in the early 1970s, forcing him to write his famous memo, conservatives knew they couldn't win when it came to democracy. So instead, they developed and promoted a new strategy: suppress voting, fill the media with nonsense to confuse voters, and use religion to argue that the government should not fund social programs which benefit the vast majority of Americans with measurable results. Why? Because this serves two principles: end or reduce taxation of the extremely wealthy (without government programs to fund, there's no taxation to support them), and end or reduce the regulations on the companies the extremely wealthy own (those regulations protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, but not the profit margins of the rich). It's that simple. By promoting the false idea that conservatives are being silenced in some way, the billionaire donors can inject their unpopular opinions and bring them to the table yet again, even though the public has consistently used the levers of democracy to vote them and their ideas out of office. This is a game, and they've been playing this game for 40 years, recycling through dozens of the same front groups with the same names and the same groups funding them. The jig is up. When your ideas and policies are consistently bad, unproven, unsupported, and result in measurably worse outcomes, then it's reasonable to assume they will become unpopular. That doesn't mean you are being silenced. It means you need to come up with better ideas. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Zimmerman has published books on free speech, campus politics, and the culture wars - this alone doesn't make someone an expert. Expertise comes from education or a similar background, or from peer reviewed publications and things of similar weight rather than mere pop-culture books or opinion pieces. A talking head who has opined about a particular subject a lot is just someone who has a strong opinion about it, which makes him a WP:BIASED source and adds nothing else. Biased sources can sometimes be usable, but the simple fact that he has a bias obviously doesn't make him more usable in and of itself; and it's important to avoid situations where a source is added specifically because of their bias, which leads to WP:FALSEBALANCE. And I've glanced over the NAS piece you linked already; of course, my understanding of Heterodox Academy is based on higher-quality RSes than that and the smattering of opinion-pieces by affiliated culture-war types that you presented. The NAS is not a WP:RS and the paper itself is mostly spin and efforts to push the Overton Window (unsurprising, since it was published by another advocacy org). That said...

Digression about the NAS piece

I do think its subtext telling, though not in the way you probably intended. To me, what it says is that more overtly, open chest-beating culture-war-against-wokism types like the NAS themselves see Heterodox Academy as a would-be ally in their culture wars and would prefer that it purge its ranks of anyone who even presents themselves as an ideological enemy, in addition to being dismayed that it is not as strident, aggressive, or unified as they might hope. Complaints like "we're mad that Heterodox Academy isn't pushing harder for the use of state power to suppress our ideological enemies" or "we're mad that Haidt presents himself as a liberal" is not a critique of someone who views it as an enemy, it's a critique of someone who is upset that what they see as a fellow-crusader in their ideological culture war is squishier than they would like. (Even the NAS itself, note, carefully describes the ideology of Haidt and others as a projected stance - saying they make a point of identifying themselves as liberals rather than actually describing them as liberals the way they do with people they actually see as ideological enemies, say. This is the wording of someone who believes that Haidt is actually on their side and who is just upset that he is too squishy.) It's clearly the writing of someone who considers Heterodox Academy part of their culture-war movement, just an insufficently... well, orthodox member of it. They are criticizing its tactics, as someone who sees themselves as part of the same culture-war movement as it.

Again, not a WP:RS, and obviously as an advocacy org they'll say whatever they feel advances their goals; but I couldn't resist pointing out that it doesn't even really support your point even in its own terms. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it with you on NAS, as I think that they are partisan hacks. I wasn't suggesting that they are WP:RS; after all, I wasn't trying to add them to the Wiki article. I was merely providing context for the debate on Heterodox's own political orientation.

But I'm afraid that the more you write about this topic, the more you reveal how little you actually know about it. Most of Zimmerman's books have been published by university presses. University press titles are peer reviewed. The idea that Beauchamp's six-year-old, half-baked maunderings about academia trump Zimmerman's expert opinion is ludicrous. I'm happy to include Beauchamp's piece in the Wikipedia article, so long as other opinions about Heterodox Academy are included to provide a fuller picture, but Beauchamp is wrong on the facts: there are plenty of data to support Heterodox Academy's argument that a chill has settled on university campuses. Free speech scholar (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The idea that Beauchamp's six-year-old, half-baked maunderings about academia trump Zimmerman's expert opinion is ludicrous. No one is arguing that but you. Please drop it.

Trying to edit Wikipedia from the perspective of academic research generally doesn't work in articles that are not about science. See WP:NOTTRUTH, and review WP:NPOV. --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, as Orwell said, sanity is not statistical. But I'm not sure that I am the only one working on this page who would argue what I have argued. [I have deleted part of this comment but revised and expanded it below.] |Free speech scholar]] (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. Sanctions apply. A case for inclusion is not going to be made in this manner. --Hipal (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, as Orwell said, sanity is not statistical. But I doubt that I am the only one working on this page who would argue what I have argued. So no, I won't drop it. In future, if an editor hurls acronyms at me rather than engaging with my arguments, then no, I will not drop the issue, and I will not bother to respond. The rules can be variously interpreted; they are context-dependent and don't wear their meanings on their face. One straightforward rule that some editors on this page seem to have forgotten should be highlighted, however: Neutral Point of View. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." Free speech scholar (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Reopening a discussion on source inclusion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC should have never been called in the first place and is a repeat of the 2021 RfC, which was never properly closed. Therefore, the consensus for both is No. Quetstar (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

The following discussion took place nearly three years ago, just after I stopped monitoring the page. I would like to re-open the discussion and extend it to other sources that users have attempted to add. Free speech scholar (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

2021 RFC: Using sources that cite Heterodox Academy as examples of reception

In the material in this diff, three sources are cited as examples of Heterodox Academy's reception. Should these be used as examples of reception? Should we use citations to it as examples of reception in general? See also the sentence immediately afterwards, which is broadly similar. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Marcy Van Fossen, James P. Burns, Thomas Lickona & Larry Schatz; references Heterodox Academy once in a footnote, no other mentions.
• CS Monitor, saying Many students do express they are increasingly “walking on eggshells” and experiencing what free speech advocates have long called the “chilling effects” of self-censorship, says Kyle Vitale, director of programs at Heterodox Academy (HxA), a nonpartisan collaborative of college professors and students committed to open inquiry and diverse viewpoints in higher education. In a 2020 survey, HxA found that 62% of sampled college students agreed the climate on their campus prevents them from saying things they believe, up from 55% in 2019. And students across the political spectrum expressed reluctance to share their ideas and opinions on politics, with 31% of self-identified Democrats, 46% of Independents, and 48% of Republicans each reporting reluctance to speak their mind.
• Matthias Revers & Richard Traunmüller; references Heterodox academy in several of its footnotes, no references to it in the text.

References

--Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• No. These are WP:SYNTH (and the first and third refs have obvious WP:UNDUE issues, given that they don't mention Heterodox Academy at all.) Using these in the reception section is effectively trying to argue-by-example that Heterodox Academy is well-received; and stating the results of their study here has no relation to their reception in any case. The CS Monitor, the one source that actually mentions them in the text, says nothing about how Heterodox Academy is received - it just quotes their opinion and figures. This is the sort of thing that we might use for WP:USEBYOTHERS when discussing a source internally, but it's inappropriate synthesis to use it to try and use it to imply things about Heterodox Academy's reception in the article text. Reception requires interpretation and analysis by definition, which means we need secondary sources discussing Heterodox Academy, not a handful of random citations to it or sources that simply quote its opinions and figures without commentary. The CS Monitor source could possibly be used elsewhere, but it shouldn't be used for reception. The other two sources are totally unusable here, since they do not discuss Heterodox Academy at all. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. It's POV to argue that we can't cite these sources that have received Heterodox Academy positively, leaving only a Vox opinion article by someone without any relevant expertise that is critical of the group, thus making it seem reception is only negative. The CS Monitor source alone would be sufficient for this. The other two only state the name "Heterodox Academy" in footnotes, true, but their research is discussed in the main text of those sources. When sources receive the group positively, of course that belongs in the reception section. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly No. To my mind, Aquillion has the better part of the argument here, especially as to sources 1 and 3. They're citing to work hosted at Heterodox Academy ("HA"), but not actually mentioning the institution at all. Citing a work with approval from a place does not necessarily mean general approval of the place. This is simply too far a putt. As to the CSM, while I think Aquillion is right that it's not strictly "reception," The author does in a sidelong way give a take on HA, and while it's not perfect, for me it will do. As ever, just my opinion, and reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. Citing HA is not an opinion on HA, or a source for the reception of HA, and using it as such is obviously WP:SYNTH. Economists cite Karl Marx reasonably often because he's historically important, but that doesn't mean they like him. Similarly, asserting that there's a problem with free speech on college campuses is also not an opinion on HA, or a source for the reception of HA, because it's possible believe that that's a problem while not knowing about or even disliking HA. Loki (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly move to another section. I think these passages could be ok to include, but that they don't really fit the ideology and reception section. Seems they would probably fit better in modified form in the "programs and activities" section. To fit in the "Ideology and reception" section I think we would need sources which more directly address either the ideology or reception of Heterodox Academy. One exception to this is the CS Monitor noting that HxA is non-partisan. This is important since it is an outside source, not just HxA, describing HxA as non-partisan-Pengortm (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. I won't speak too much on which sources we should use to characterize their ideology, but as concerns their reputation, there is substantial precedent that we should require high-quality sources when describing academic reputations. See WP:HIGHEREDREP or Wikipedia:NPOV#Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations. For 1 and 3, citing Heterodox Academy as a source doesn't say anything about its reputation, so I'm not sure what material it could be used to support. For 2, the CS Monitor is an RSP-greenlit source, but this is clearly a more opinion-esque article that only mentions Heterodox Academy in passing (using fairly promo-y language that seems drawn from a mission statement), and the author does not appear to have any expertise in higher education. If this was some incredibly niche group, perhaps we could go with the CS Monitor with in-text attribution, but for a group that's received as much attention as this, surely we can do better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

2024 Survey

• Yes. The grounds cited for removal of the material impress me as tenuous. The characterization of the material as "Synth," for example, seems off-base, as this implies that the authors of the articles did not agree with Heterodox Academy's assessment of the present campus climate, when they plainly did agree with it. I would argue that this counts as relevant "reception" history: when conclusions are accepted and used to advance an argument, that is germane to reception--to how an organization's ideas are received. Scholars commonly use the term "reception" in the context of citation analysis; see [13], [14], [15] But I don't want to split hairs; perhaps a new section on "Influence" could be created. What about a section devoted to influence? Free speech scholar (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• No. We need secondary sources independent of the group. This is a very old game these groups play to make it seem like their mission is supported by independent studies. It is not. They claim they are nonpartisan, but they take money from right-wing conservative donors to push the idea that conservatives are being silenced, which then, surprise, surprise, allows them to justify promoting unpopular, conservative talking points. This is yet-another-Koch-financed-front-group to promote the baseless idea that conservatives are being silenced. Heterodox's president John Tomasi is a so-called "libertarian" who founded the Political Theory Project with help from donors like the Atlas Network, Searle Freedom Trust, and the Charles Koch Foundation. They keep doing this over and over again in different ways in the hopes that nobody notices the game they are playing. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence do you have that the secondary sources are not independent of the group? Free speech scholar (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes; I concur with Free speech scholar here and with Crossroads and Pengortm from the 2021 discussion. Perhaps this content doesn't belong in the "Ideology and reception" section, but the HxA's survey work could be included in "Programs and activities", or a new section. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Here, for instance, is a neutral article--pure reportage, in fact--of a Heterodox Academy survey, published by Inside Higher Ed. Here is Yascha Mounk's opinion piece in the Atlantic',' which refers to Heterodox Academy in two consecutive paragraphs. The first article might be cited in "Programs and activities," but I don't know where to place the Atlantic piece. Does anyone have any (constructive) suggestions? Free speech scholar (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• No per the 2021 RfC, which should have been formally closed. My apologies for not referring to the 2021 RfC in the earlier discussions here. It summarizes my perspective on the content policies nicely. Arguing for poorer sources to create "balance" in a topic under sanctions never results in anything good. --Hipal (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Repeating the claim that the sources you disapprove of are "poorer" than the ones you happen to approve of does not make the claim true. I am also asking for consideration of additional sources. Free speech scholar (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor named Quetstar has closed the above discussion on the following grounds: "This RfC should have never been called in the first place and is a repeat of the 2021 RfC, which was never properly closed. Therefore, the consensus for both is No." In fact, four of the six editors surveyed in 2021 agreed to the inclusion of the CS Monitor article; there was no agreement, however, on where in the Wikipedia entry it should appear. Perhaps this was the reason that the survey was never formally closed. I will open a new survey centering on new material instead. Free speech scholar (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

New Survey, 2024

I am proposing two new articles for inclusion in the "Heterodox Academy" Wikipedia entry:

• The first is a neutral article--pure reportage, in fact--about a Heterodox Academy survey, published by Inside Higher Ed. The second is Yascha Mounk's opinion piece in the Atlantic, which refers to Heterodox Academy in two consecutive paragraphs. The first article might be cited in "Programs and activities," but I don't know where to place the Atlantic piece. I would argue that it belongs in reception, but if others disagree, I am open to creating a new section. I would also like to propose Jonathan Rauch's book The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth (Brookings, 2021) for inclusion in the Wikipedia entry. Rauch refers to Heterodox Academy on multiple occasions. For those without access to the book, here is one such passage relating to self-censorship on campus:

"There was no mystery about the main source of the chilling. And it was not, chiefly, “tenured radicals” on the faculty. Aggressively politicized professors and administrators sometimes did shame or persecute conservatives (and liberals), but they were the exception, not the rule. In the Chapel Hill survey, most students (liberals and conservatives alike) said that professors were generally open-minded and encouraging of participation across the political spectrum. Students at Chapel Hill reported worrying more about censure from fellow students than from faculty. When the 2019 poll by Heterodox Academy asked students why they were reluctant to express their opinions, more than 60 percent cited the worry that other students would criticize their views as offensive, versus fewer than half who cited criticism from professors or fear of receiving a lower grade. Students I interviewed said the same thing: they perceived most professors, including most left-wing professors, as bending over backward to encourage debate." Free speech scholar (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This source:

Langlitz, Nicolas; de Althaus, Clemente (February 2024). "The moral economy of diversity: How the epistemic value of diversity transforms late modern knowledge cultures". History of the Human Sciences. 37 (1): 3–27. doi:10.1177/09526951231166533. ISSN 0952-6951.

talks a bit about the org's founding, so it might be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Most absurd lead section in the history of Wikipedia

(HxA) is a non-profit advocacy group of academics working to counteract what they see as a lack of viewpoint diversity on college campuses, especially by encouraging political diversity

Nobody in the history of secular education has ever complained about the lack of "viewpoint diversity" on a college campus. This is all nonsense, and quite obviously a euphemism for "I hold unpopular ideas, often consisting of classicism, sexism, racism, and economic and religious bias, that modern civilization no longer tolerates". Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not an edifying conversation with a plausible chance of improving the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must be too dull to see how these remarks--along with many of Viriditas's comments on this page--move the conversation forward. Free speech scholar (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Do you believe that "viewpoint diversity" is a problem on college campuses? It sounds to me like a made up, fictitious idea, created to solely promote unpopular conservative ideas, failed ideas that have already died in the marketplace of ideas and in the voting booths. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz….is the son of billionaire investor and philanthropist Robert Rosenkranz. There it is. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Rosenkranz…serves on the board of directors for the Manhattan Institute [and] the Hoover Institution This is all so surprising! Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC) FSS, you're not too dull. Viriditas has a history of entering discussions like this one, and offering very general WP:FORUM-ish comments and personal opinions about politics that often don't directly the engage with the subject being discussed nor any of the relevant sourcing. That's what he's done again here. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC) What I’ve written is entirely relevant. This group is not non-partisan as they claim, they are directly connected to conservative billionaires, including donors of the Koch network, as well as two very large and significant conservative "think tanks" (which I put in quotes since everyone knows they are fake front groups for the same billionaires and do no such thinking). Furthermore, there is zero evidence for the silencing of conservative voices anywhere, voices which happen to be the loudest in the entire country, as they use their deep pockets to fund culture wars and disinformation like "conservatives are being silenced". Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Jon Haidt, a liberal, also founded Heterodox Academy. Cornel West, a socialist, was on the advisory board. You seem not to understand the term "viewpoint diversity." Free speech scholar (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Hilarious. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC) As even your natural allies seem to ignore you, I'll take a cue from them and do the same. Free speech scholar (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Wrong, yet again. Jweiss11 is not my "natural ally", he is yours, as he is a conservative like yourself (please stop selling me on your liberal democrat origin story, we all know Heterodox Academy is a conservative enterprise). You've been here for three years, since 2021, but you haven't created a single article,[16], and you've made 144 edits, 63% to this talk page alone. The rest of your edits have been made to this article, your user pages, and to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Something tells me you aren't here to build the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, particularly the part about conflict of interest and advocacy. Also, you should at least try to do the modicum of research when it comes to conservative interest groups. The literature is transparent about how their main tactic is to use names like "Free speech X" and "Y for Liberty" as their modus operandi to confuse people. This translates as "conservatives want free speech for themselves, at the expense of everyone else". And that's what we currently see happening on conservative-owned media outlets like X. So please, spare me the free speech absolutism pretense. We all know what that means. That you chose it as a user name says a lot. To conclude, I continue to maintain that the idea that "conservative voices are being silenced" is a farce, and is precisely the opposite of what is occurring in reality. This article should not pretend otherwise, as we are not in the business of promoting alternative facts. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC) I promised myself that I wouldn't do this, and I will probably hate myself in the morning, but for the love of all that is good, what are you on about? I was not referring to Jweiss11 as your natural ally. (That's the only interpretive clue I intend to give you on that score, as I have other things to do, including a 60-hours-per-week real job.) But please, don't tell me what my politics are. I worked on the Walter Mondale campaign in 1984, before I was even old enough to vote, and I worked on the Obama campaign in 2008. I donated $500 to Biden in January, which the Harris campaign has inherited. Not only am I a registered Democrat; every time I have entered the voting booth, I have voted for Democrats. Every. Single. Time. (And that's a lot of times.) This fall, I will proudly pull the lever for Kamala Harris. If you continue to insist (or even imply) that I am lying about my politics, I will report you. This is your final warning. What you cannot seem to wrap your mind around is that one might be able to bracket politics in inquiring after the truth. I suggest that you don't strain too hard to understand this method of inquiry; it's evidently so foreign to you that you might have a stroke. Free speech scholar (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC) You said you were going to ignore me. You didn’t. Like Jweiss, you distract and deflect the discussion with comments about what you think I should believe about you when that’s not even under discussion. You brought up the idea that you were a liberal Democrat, not me. Please feel free to report me where I will also report you as a SPA. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC) You're right: I should have ignored you. The level of projection here is mind-boggling. Free speech scholar (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone proposing changes to the lede? If so, please indicate what current content and sources support such changes. --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No changes at this time. Feel free to close. Still in the collecting sources phase. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It will be interesting to see what potential sources you find. --Hipal (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

doi:10.1037/mac0000007 talks about the value of viewpoint diversity in scientific research. This is more about the Adversarial collaboration concept than about "political" viewpoints, so I'm not sure it would be relevant to this group.

Viewpoint diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a {{redirect with possibilities}} to Academic freedom. Perhaps adding some content about that subject would be a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

To say that "Nobody in the history of secular education has ever complained about the lack of "viewpoint diversity" on a college campus" is hyperbolic. doi:10.1007/s12115-023-00911-3 complains about "suppression of viewpoint diversity" . Do I personally agree with this author? At a glance, no. But he does seem to be complaining about a lack of viewpoint diversity in "American Higher Education", in an academic journal Society (journal).

More relevantly for this article, Wikipedia is not asserting that there actually is a lack of viewpoint diversity; we make claims only about what they see as a lack of viewpoint diversity. If a notable organization was working to counteract what they see as magic spells, or what they see as people being too healthy, or what they see as the reincarnation of Bonaparte, we'd say that, too. "What they see" doesn't have to align with reality for us to say that they see it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)