Behavioural Research UK’s Post

It’s been a big year for higher ed in Texas. The state’s colleges are at the center of many high-profile conversations about policy and politics — including the banning of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on campuses and intensifying debates over free speech. At the same time, people across the country are losing faith in their colleges. That's particularly true among Republicans — and it's a dynamic that governors like Greg Abbott are tapping into. What should colleges be doing to regain the public's trust? What would it take to lessen the partisan divide? How can higher ed in Texas get its mojo back? I'll be talking about these issues tomorrow, 9/6, at #TribFest24 with Amy Bosley, Tedd Mitchell, & Harrison Keller. Come join us at 1 p.m. Central. https://trib.it/sBHbuK

Is the US exceptional? Does the polarisation of politics in the United States have unique causes? No, except the extremism of the GOP, an establishment or what we used to call a major party. Polarisation and fragmentation are occurring across the worlds representative democracies but one is not necessarily causal of the other says Professor Pippa Norris. Because of the rigid two party system in the United States fragmentation means changes to the major parties rather than the emergence of new political parties. This explains the greater prominence of political action committees such as The Tea Party and Justice Democrats. https://lnkd.in/gctiPYcY

We know teaching the events of January 6, 2021—which are not a “moment,” but the product of a long history—presents a familiar, yet unusually urgent, challenge: how can students use historical knowledge and thinking to understand recent crises? Here are some resources that might help.

Please join us this Monday at 6 PM ET for a virtual town hall meeting about our recently-announced settlement with Columbia University. This first-of-its-kind agreement protects the safety of all students on campus during protests, accommodations for impacted students, and sets the stage for real, safe debate on these issues in the Columbia community. All are invited to attend the town hall. You can submit questions for us via the registration page and any member of the Columbia community will be welcome to ask questions live. Please register by visiting our website at: https://lnkd.in/g_q4DMTP. Among the topics we’ll address are: - The lawsuit against Columbia and what happened in the case - What the settlement provides  - Next steps 

The CTA is failing the people of Chicago. The solution is simple. The hard part is organizing the masses in order to make it happen. https://lnkd.in/dnUrAdDQ

We passed a resolution in support of peaceful protest on university campuses and condemning police action against peaceful protestors. Kudos to the present senators who voted in favor of this resolution https://lnkd.in/eXPTzkPp... RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PEACEFUL PROTEST ON COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES Whereas freedom of speech is a high value and protected within institutions of higher education, an at Rutgers particularly, as reaffirmed President Jonathan Holloway in his statement, “On Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech” (https://lnkd.in/ePxWypd9...); and Whereas U.S. universities and colleges have a long and important history of being sites of intellectual, social, and political debate that have extended, equally importantly, into serving as settings for protest….; and Whereas non-violent protests are a form of protected free speech, Be it resolved that the Rutgers University Senate condemns the use of police and other security forces against peaceful protests that have recently arisen on campuses across the country, and the sanctioning of peaceful protesters by their educational institutions. Be it further resolved that the Rutgers University Senate implores Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway to affirm that similarly repressive and harmful tactics will never be used against members of the Rutgers community who engage in peaceful protest. [1] “All members of our community—our faculty members, students, alumni, and staff—are free to express their viewpoints in public forums as private citizens, including viewpoints that the University itself may not share. And we do not restrict the activities of recognized university organizations, including the speakers they invite to campus, as long as these organizations follow University policy and guidelines.” [2] “While Rutgers will not defend the content of every opinion expressed by every member of our academic community, or of speakers who we invite to our campus, it will defend their right to speak freely. That freedom is fundamental to our University, our society, and our nation.”

We know teaching the events of January 6, 2021—which are not a “moment,” but the product of a long history—presents a familiar, yet unusually urgent, challenge: how can students use historical knowledge and thinking to understand recent crises? Here are some resources that might help.

Here is an article that uses the Tug of War as a metaphor for the struggle between the conservative and the progressive to accomplish political goals. I found it quite interesting.

Tomorrow, I’ll be delighted to participate in the official launch of the Nova School of Business and Economics Public Policy Institute! I’ll be joining the panel "Nova SBE Action in Public Policy" to present our financial literacy program, Finanças para Todos – an initiative aimed at empowering individuals with the knowledge and skills to make informed financial decisions. I’m looking forward to discussing how this program can contribute to fostering a more financially inclusive society and the impact Nova SBE is making in public policy. #NovaSBE #PublicPolicy #FinancialLiteracy #FinançasParaTodos

A thoughtful statement in the WSJ about the importance of "institutional neutrality" by the President of the University of Chicago, Paul Alivisatos. It reminded me of Michael J. Glennon's excellent recent book, Free Speech and Turbulent Freedom. The topics are very different (campus protests; the allure of censorship in the digital era), but the underlying views of free speech and the importance of the "marketplace of ideas" are similar. President Alivisatos makes reference to the "Chicago Principles," which include this paragraph: "In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission." Professor Glennon quotes from a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court case in the introduction to his book on the First Amendment: "Our representative democracy only works if we protect the 'marketplace of ideas.' This free exchange facilitates an informed public opinion, which, when transmitted to lawmakers, helps produce laws that reflect the People's will. That protection must include the protection of unpopular ideas, for popular ideas have less need for protection." For anyone who has read Maurice Stucke and my 2001 article, "Antitrust and the Marketplace of Ideas," it is probably clear why all of this strikes a chord. (Growing up in the shadow of the University of Chicago also may be a contributing factor!)