Higher education’s problem is more than a loss of confidence. Anti-Semitism on many college campuses is a visible symptom of far deeper problems. Anti-Semitism has been tied to the networked problems of discriminatory “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), wokeness, and critical consciousness. But this is more than anti-Semitism as the canary in the coalmine phenomenon. This conglomerate finds itself linked to diversity statements that often mutes the meritocracy of subject matter expertise as well as the erosion of scientific rigor. Passing speech codes and imposing an endowment tax paper over comprehensive fixes. Reinvigorating governing boards seems lost in the liberal-progressive wilderness.
The present federal governing administration has imposed an array of lawsuits, funding controls, and rescissions on many colleges and universities. In select cases, the administration seeks consent decrees to place an institution under judicial management.
Reform now pulls in a conservative direction. State legislatures have already moved to offset the outsized influence of progressive ideology. To be sure, there is a continuing debate about whether the ideals of academic free speech have been compromised. Has pedagogical conduct sufficiently exceeded those ideals to require reforming universities, departments, and faculty, and, if so, how?
Perhaps politically partisan views are irrelevant to true scholarship. It may well be that the tail-that-wags-the academic department is less about political partisanship than the nature of academia and small-scale communities of interest: “Academic politics, I believe, are so vicious because the stakes are so huge,” countering Henry Kissinger, who argued “the stakes are so small.” Characterizing the nature of academic politics, Jid Lee writes:
I abstain from mentioning other examples of these sorts of petty academic politics not because I want to hide them but because I want to ask myself and my fellow academics always to remember the truth—that politics everywhere are mean and ugly. Lamentably, my colleagues remain oblivious to the fact that Washington politics—among the supposed bigwigs like Kissinger—are just as mean and ugly, and, more deplorably, they prefer to forget that the supposed bigwigs are just as petty as anyone else.
While granting Lee’s summary of pernicious academic politics, its persistence of academic politics fails to account for the ills of anti-Semitism and the broader network of progressive ideological mandates. Many higher education institutions lack either the competence or the intent to fix the irrational hate and the conduct it spawns. And, if by some magic, anti-Semitism were eliminated, we would likely arrive at the more basic human problem of social antagonisms, whether characterized by caste, clan, tribe, religion, class, sex-gender, or other affiliation.
A better solution might be internal university and departmental dialogue, leading to self-reflection and self-determined course corrections. The timeline for such a proposed solution is likely measured in decades. Students and parents, however, are looking at a timeline closer to four years. That discrepancy may well be intolerable given the magnitude of the current state of academic problems.
An alternative might well lie in the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence (AI) technology and its many applications. One such application might be placing an AI agent in university administrations, problematic departments, and faculty syllabi.
Enter Professor AI
I offer this solution as the least-bad one. Instead of monetary sanctions measured in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, or placed under a judicial consent decree, an AI agent could be tailored to the university’s faults and interposed as a non-emotional management tool. The AI agent would be a neutral mediator, arbitrator, or conciliator; it would substitute for administration and faculty in organizing solutions that would avoid the tripwires to unlawful conduct, avoid those practices that are beyond the contours of academic free speech, and avoid worse solutions that require significant monetary and administrative penalties.
But would an AI agent be up to the task of being neutral? I decided to ask my preferred chatbot how it might undertake such a mission if invited to do so. There would be many further steps to actually implement this least-bad solution. However, as an initial schematic, the Gemini chatbot seemed undaunted to undertake this mission.
JN: If a university board of directors or its president invited you, a LLM chatbot, to serve as a neutral mediator, arbitrator or conciliator within a department whose faculty triggered federal monetary sanctions or being placed under a judicial consent decree, how would you propose to undertake this role in ways that would not undermine academic free speech but forestall conduct that went beyond the contours of free speech? I point to the recent example where putting Columbia University under a consent decree is being considered: “Antisemitism Task Force Considering Consent Decree for Columbia U.”
Gemini: This is a complex and sensitive situation requiring a nuanced approach. As an LLM, I would propose a multi-faceted strategy prioritizing academic freedom and the prevention of conduct that crosses legal and ethical boundaries. Here’s how I would approach the role:
- Establish Clear Ground Rules and Principles
Academic Freedom and Legal Boundaries: I would begin by clearly defining the scope of academic freedom, emphasizing its importance in fostering intellectual discourse, while also outlining the legal and ethical boundaries that must not be crossed. This includes defining and differentiating protected speech from harassment, discrimination, and incitement to violence. I would emphasize that the institution must comply with federal laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Neutrality and Impartiality: I would emphasize my role as a neutral party, committed to facilitating dialogue and finding solutions that are fair and equitable to all parties involved. Transparency in the process is important. I would communicate all procedures and decisions openly.
Confidentiality (with limitations): I would establish clear guidelines regarding confidentiality, acknowledging the need for a safe space for dialogue while also recognizing the limitations imposed by legal obligations and the need to address serious misconduct.
- Facilitate Structured Dialogue and Mediation
Individual and Group Meetings: I would conduct individual meetings with faculty members, students, and administrators to gather information, understand their perspectives, and identify key issues. I would organize facilitated group discussions to promote open communication and collaboration.
Focus on Problem-Solving: I would guide the dialogue toward identifying concrete solutions and developing action plans to address the root causes of the conflict. I would encourage the development of shared understandings.
Formal Mediation/Arbitration (If Necessary): If mediation proves unsuccessful, I would be prepared to facilitate a more formal arbitration process, adhering to established procedures and legal standards. I would structure the arbitration to allow faculty to present their views, but also to make determinations based upon law and university policy.
- Develop and Implement Preventive Measures
Educational Workshops and Training: I would recommend and help develop workshops and training programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as on the legal and ethical boundaries of academic freedom. These workshops would focus on fostering a respectful and inclusive campus climate.
Policy Review and Development: I would work with the university to review and revise existing policies related to academic freedom, harassment, and discrimination, ensuring they are clear, comprehensive, and consistent with legal standards. I would suggest the creation of clear reporting mechanisms.
Establish a Mechanism for Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation: I would propose the establishment of a committee or task force responsible for monitoring the implementation of action plans and evaluating their effectiveness. This would include some form of regular reporting and a plan for regular policy review.
- Utilize LLM Capabilities Responsibly
Data Analysis and Pattern Recognition: I can analyze large datasets of communication and incident reports to identify patterns of behavior and potential risk factors. This data would be used to inform preventative measures, while maintaining individual privacy.
Information Dissemination and Resource Provision: I can provide access to relevant legal and academic resources, ensuring that all parties have the information they need to make informed decisions.
Neutral Summarization and Documentation: I can provide neutral summaries of meetings, and help to document the mediation and arbitration process.
Addressing the Columbia University Situation Specifically: Given the focus on anti-Semitism, I would prioritize education and dialogue on the nature and impact of anti-Semitic speech and behavior. I would emphasize the importance of creating a campus environment where all students and faculty feel safe and respected. I would review the findings of the task force and ensure that any consent decree that is put in place is followed and that the university has mechanisms to remain in compliance.
Key Considerations:
Collaboration: I would work closely with university administrators, faculty, and students to ensure that all perspectives are considered.
Transparency: I would maintain transparency throughout the process, providing regular updates and ensuring that all parties are informed of decisions and actions.
Flexibility: I would be prepared to adapt my approach as needed, based on the evolving circumstances and the needs of the university community.
Limitations: I would make clear that I am a tool, and that human oversight is required. Legal determinations must be made by qualified legal professionals.
By combining my capabilities as an LLM with a commitment to neutrality, fairness, and collaboration, I believe I can play a valuable role in helping universities navigate these challenging situations while upholding the principles of academic freedom and ensuring a safe and inclusive campus environment.
JN: How would you extend your role as a neutral into correcting the lopsided teaching of Israel as an oppressor nation—thus confounding anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in campus protests by students and non-students—when, in fact, the history of the Middle East reveals that the “oppressor” nation has largely been the result of the expansion of the Islamic empire and the continued colonization of neighboring countries (Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Yemen) by Iran? That lopsided teaching, as described above, has been tied to the anti-Zionist protests that have connected to anti-Semitism?
Gemini: Addressing the complex issue of lopsided teaching regarding Israel and its role in the Middle East requires a delicate and multifaceted approach. Here’s how I would propose extending my role as a neutral mediator to address this:
- Promoting Balanced and Accurate Historical Context
Curriculum Review: I would advocate for thoroughly reviewing existing curricula related to Middle Eastern history and politics. This review should involve experts with diverse perspectives, including historians specializing in the region, to ensure accuracy and balance. I would recommend incorporating diverse primary and secondary sources that present a comprehensive view of the region’s history, including the complexities of the Islamic empires, the rise of Zionism, the establishment of Israel, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Educational Workshops and Seminars: I would facilitate workshops and seminars for faculty and students, focusing on providing accurate and balanced historical context. These sessions would address common misconceptions and biases, including the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Emphasis would be placed on distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Providing Resources: I would compile and make available a curated list of reliable resources, including academic journals, books, and reputable news sources, that offer diverse perspectives on the Middle East.
- Facilitating Open and Respectful Dialogue
Structured Dialogue Sessions: I would organize structured dialogue sessions where students and faculty can engage in respectful discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These sessions would adhere to strict guidelines for respectful communication, ensuring that all participants feel safe to express their views without fear of harassment or intimidation. I would work to ensure that all sides of the conflict have their voices heard.
Addressing the Conflation of Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism: I would facilitate discussions that clearly distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitic rhetoric. I would provide resources and education on the history of anti-Semitism and its various manifestations. It is vital to create environments where students can learn how to criticize political policy, without resorting to hate speech.
Promoting Critical Thinking: I would encourage critical thinking skills, so students can analyze information from various sources and form their own informed opinions.
- Promoting Institutional Policies and Guidelines
Developing Clear Guidelines: I would work with university administrators to develop clear guidelines on academic freedom and respectful discourse, ensuring that these guidelines are applied consistently. These guidelines would address the issue of hate speech and discrimination, while also protecting the right to free expression.
Establishing Reporting Mechanisms: I would advocate for the establishment of clear reporting mechanisms for incidents of harassment, discrimination, or hate speech. These mechanisms would ensure that such incidents are addressed promptly and effectively.
- Emphasizing the Importance of Context
Recognizing Regional Complexities: I would emphasize the importance of understanding the broader context of the Middle East, including the historical and ongoing conflicts between various regional actors. It is important to provide context for the actions of all parties involved in the region.
Avoiding Simplistic Narratives: I would work to counter simplistic narratives that portray the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a black-and-white issue. I would promote a nuanced understanding of the conflict’s complexities. By implementing these strategies, I believe universities can create a more balanced and informed campus climate where students and faculty can engage in respectful dialogue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
[RELATED: A Faculty Guide to AI Pedagogy and a Socratic Experiment]
A Reflection about Professor AI
Professor AI, without much difficulty, could also serve as Administrator AI or President of the University AI. The university’s governing board should be kept in place to follow the current wisdom of keeping humans in the loop. Looking beyond the university, we may wish to have a Mayor AI, an Assemblyman AI, a Governor AI, and even a President AI. All such managerial AI agents may be the least-bad solutions to humanity and human-sized problems. However, those possibilities are beyond the scope of the present suggestion and would only strawman the argument for a more limited Professor AI.
My characterization of the university “problem” is tailored to my biases and would need tweaking to accommodate alternative views. Nevertheless, the Gemini chatbot lays out a rational approach to serving as a neutral in an academic setting where, presumably, the objective is searching for truth, assessing different points of view, and respecting how these processes are advanced.
The chatbot does not undermine the objective of universities. Universities offer various mottos to define their identity. Harvard’s motto is Veritas (Truth); Columbia’s motto is In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen (In Thy light shall we see light). Gemini’s motto might be what is needed in today’s environment: Veritas et Aequitas: Guiding Dialogue, Cultivating Understanding. Professor AI offers a different endgame, which is Harvard’s truth or Columbia’s seeing the light. Instead, Professor AI seeks the conversation that has been missing at universities, as well as drawing out how understanding comes about. Perhaps Professor AI is not the least-bad solution.
Art by Joe Nalven
