I was disturbed to read about MIT’s recent cancellation of a lecture by the highly reputed geophysicist Dorian Abbot of the U of Chicago. Abbot’s lecture was to be on the subject of climate change and the possibility of human habitation of other planets. But news of the invitation for Abbot to speak evoked protests from some students and faculty, and the invitation to Abbot was rescinded.  The objection to Abbot was that he had expressed opposition to universities’ employment of affirmative action in admissions and recruitment decisions.

Needless to say, Abbot’s views on affirmative action have nothing to do with the topic he was invited to speak on.  So, what’s the problem?  The objections to the Abbot invitation imply that anyone who disagrees with the university’s views on affirmative action should be regarded as persona non grata. The apparent claim is that Abbot’s very presence as an honored guest lecturer in a venue sponsored by MIT would deeply offend members of the university community, especially people of color.

There is nothing particularly unusual about Abbot’s views on affirmative action—they are in line with arguments that have been made for decades.  (They also happen to comport with the views of the great majority of the American public.)  Abbot believes that any departure from strict merit-based criteria for recruitment of members of the university community (both students and faculty) compromises the university’s commitment to excellence in the search for truth. He also believes that affirmative action, by favoring some specified social groups over others, violates the principle of equal treatment of all individuals. I have no desire to wade into an affirmative action debate here, but I regard these as reasonable arguments, to which there are reasonable counter-arguments. To suggest that there is no room for good faith, reasonable  discussion here–to suggest that anyone who holds views like Abbot’s must be regarded as some kind of pariah—is deplorable.  It is the mark of an authoritarian mind set, which places more value on the enforcement of a particular orthodoxy than it does on free discussion. Such authoritarianism is fundamentally incompatible with the supposed purpose of a university like MIT, not to mention with the premises of a free, democratic society.

That the orthodoxy MIT seeks to enforce is at odds with the views of a majority of Americans makes this incident all the more disturbing.  If you are going to uphold an unpopular position, you should be willing to engage with the views of the majority, rather than demonize them. MIT has given credence to the charge of elitism that right-wing populists like to hurl at academia. At the same time, the university has provided an ideal example of the “cancel culture” the right loves to decry.

All in all a very poor performance by MIT