Sure. But I have found that the allegation of the echo chamber is often exaggerated, if not undeserved entirely, and is frequently made by people who have no earthly idea what’s actually going on at the school.
Take, for example, some of the early comments in this thread about what goes on at Wesleyan, by people who very clearly don’t have any idea what really goes on there.
I would refer you to long time left-leaning academics like Dr. Jon Haidt, Dr. Bret Weinstein, and Dr. John Tomasi, among others, who have been warning us about the echo chamber on US campuses for years.
That’s funny. The picture they use is of the quad at the University of Washington, my alma mater. Another school that gets tagged with the “echo chamber” label. And yet, at the invitation of a retired Philosophy professor of mine, I sat in on a department seminar several months ago at which there was plenty of open debate and discussion about an issue that is imbued with political rancor, and viewpoints that could fairly be described as right of center were not squelched in any way whatsoever.
Listen, I’m not saying there is no point to that bit of caution that you’re waiving around. I know what you’re talking about. If you go into a sociology class at Mount Holyoke College and insist the country was better off in the 1950s when women were home tending to children and men were expected to lead the family, you’re going to get a lot of push back. But I am confident that nobody is going to make you stop talking. You’re just going to face a lot of (fierce) challenge to your proposition and will need to be able to defend it. And I also acknowledge that every school in the country isn’t the University of Chicago (as I understand their reputation to be) in this regard.
But I also think that “echo chamber” is often used as an excuse by people who assert points of view but lack the skill or knowledge to back them up against a good challenge. I’ve seen a lot of that, especially in law school. That’s not being squelched; it’s being unprepared.
In practice, how often do students make such a choice? In the state of Alabama (from your example), HWCUs are still mostly White, and HBCUs are still mostly Black, both to a greater extent than the state population.
You mean the choice to continue the status quo or the choice to break out?
Yes. In the example, it looks like most students choose the status quo (whether you consider that good, bad, or otherwise).
Yes, I agree. I think that’s much more often what students do.
And it’s not fair for me to pick on the south. How many NYC prep school educated students seek out southern schools (at least those not named Duke or Vanderbilt)?
Edited to add: As to how I consider it, I personally don’t have a hard stance on this. On the one hand, I get what Roth is getting at, but it’s also a position that is easy to poke at with countering considerations.
I guess where I settle on it is that “uncomfortable” shouldn’t involve or approach feelings of alienation … that one is somewhere where one is not wanted or welcomed. Nobody should have to endure that to get a great education. But Roth himself deals with that pretty squarely in his “safe enough spaces” positions by making that very point. You should not expect to be able to maintain your campus experience at room temperature all the time. But you should expect that you won’t be made to feel like you need to leave. So, no intimidation, no ridicule, no disparagement, no lack of basic respect, etc.
It’s not just Duke and Vanderbilt- add Tulane, W&L, Davidson, Emory. Rollins among a particular subset, Richmond and Charleston for a different subset. And UNC and USC for kids looking for a very sporty vibe.
I think most of us would agree there are some reasonable points, particularly later in the piece. It was mostly just the title and the opening framing that really seemed overstated, and in that sense that framing distracted from the more reasonable points later.
I am sure there are many examples of free and open debate on college campuses. There are also many examples of speakers shouted down or uninvited, faculty or administrators disciplined, ostrasized or fired for publishing or referring to research that goes against the current orthodoxy (Larry Summers, Roland Fryer, Judith Curry et al), and professors not discussing social or political issues out of fear that their opinions will adversely affect their careers.
Haidt and Heterodox go beyond anecdotes and publish data on political affiliation and donations of academics (spoiler alert, they favor one party overwhelmingly), how willing college students are to discuss controversial subjects on campus for fear of negative social consequences, and how willing academics are to lecture on or write about research that does not conform to the current narrative (a huge issue in evolutionary psychology).
I would say, based on the responses, that “most” is a little optimistic, but that’s fine. I would also argue that much of the framing was done by those who maintain a skeptical (and largely uninformed) view of what goes on at the particular college where this guy works, which of course invariably leads (and it did) to the more general discussion about echo chambers.
As to the title, sure, ok. It’s an OpEd though. It’s supposed to grab your attention. I’ve read the thing now three times, and I’m still struggling to find the controversy.
Besides that, I’m sure Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play.
My understanding is that young men, in particular, feel they have to do a lot of eggshell walking these days. I think that’s true everywhere. I think what @cquin was objecting to was the singling out of Wesleyan which seemed to be a thing early on in the thread (perhaps, to embarrass Roth? I don’t know. We can spend all day throwing stones from inside our glorified glass houses.)
I think most colleges in the U.S. have the ingredients necessary to expose their students to new ideas and experiences that push them out of what they have always known. I suspect there are some where people might feel less confident in espousing minority perspectives, which means those universities should work on making the campus feel like a safer place for the exchange of ideas. Then there are other schools where espousing minority perspectives might qualify for violations of the code of conduct and result in disciplinary measures (I suspect that very conservative, religious institutions may have such policies regarding speech/beliefs related to LGBTQ issues, abortion, potentially evolution, etc).
One potential solution is to have more interdisciplinary classes.
Have Point/Counterpoint classes where professors either teach the class together or teach alternating class periods/weeks, etc. But there might be a class on the deficit, or the most important books of the 20th century, and the professors would each be able to have half the reading list and make selections they felt were most appropriate (or they could be assigned sides or they could play devil’s advocate for the side that was opposite their own beliefs).
(And yes, there is nothing stopping a professor from assigning readings from multiple perspectives in classes now. But the mistrust that some individuals have toward the academy is such that I think those individuals would feel more confident in the sincerity of the effort if there was more than one instructor.)
Have a class with a very broad theme such as the industrial revolution or AI or the body. Then each week or class session would be led by a professor from a different department such as public health, or ethics, business, or technology, or art, or sociology, etc. As others have mentioned, some departments are known for their leanings, so this would be another way to present differing perspectives and to challenge students’ thinking.
Correct, and not so much to defend Wesleyan itself, but to respond to the notion that this guy is the president of a place where everyone sings off of the same song sheet so he can’t possibly be heard to have an opinion about this. Disagree with his proffered idea all you want. IDRC. But the particular rhetorical devices employed early on the thread are hackneyed at this point.
I’d also say that the echo chamber exaggerations apply to a lot of schools besides Wesleyan, and my view stands as it pertains to those as well.
As for egg shells, I walk on them too for a variety of folks, not the least of which are my Ds, who challenge me in my views all the time. We’ve had several lively debates in our home, particularly over the last 4 or 5 years.
We have too. The latest revolves around whether or not gradient descent always converges to a global optimum. Lively 
That particular point of controversy has evaded our residence … for the time being. 
I was refering to US universities in general, not singling out Wesleyan.
I think it’s been helpful to think about the exceptions. Like for young people suffering from trauma; people in despair, and people who have already experienced a lifetime of discomfort, like the chronically ill.
My high school AP American History class was taught by a team of two teachers, who took opposing views of various issues. At beginning of each class students were put on the spot to review the reading assignments for the day, then they took their positions and students were expected to challenge or defend each viewpoint with facts and reason. God help a student who stated an opinion without back-up. We need more of this.
I’m not really bough in to the concept that “The best college is one where you don’t fit in”.
Our S spent his four years in a HS where he did not fit in. His large public HS had a focus on sports, a strange disdain for the math-science types, and a very liberal bent on the non-STEM classes.
When he attended college, however, he did fit in. He was challenged by a very diverse cohort of students, and while sports were everywhere even the athletes had a health respect for the engineering students. For him, “fitting in” was far better than not.