To the editor:
John Wilson’s critique of our book (“‘Viewpoint Diversity’ and John Tomasi,” March 23, 2026) relies on misrepresentation and character attacks rather than engagement with evidence and argument—the very problem our book sets out to address.
Viewpoint Diversity: What It Is, Why We Need it, and How to Get It, which I co-edited with Bernard Schweizer, examines a troubling trend: While identity-based diversity on campus has grown dramatically over 50 years, faculty have become sharply more ideologically homogeneous—from a left-right ratio of two to one in 1990 to roughly five to one today. We argue that a university loses something essential when it gains on one dimension of viewpoint diversity while declining on the other. And more than 20 scholars and intellectuals explore this challenge facing the academy, presenting thoughtful arguments and proposals for improvement.
It is ironic, therefore, that John Wilson’s critique of my book chapter runs mainly on ad hominem attacks rather than evidence-based argumentation. For example, Wilson seizes on a rather bland statement of fact made separately by me and another contributor, Tyler VanderWeele: that the topic of ideological viewpoint diversity gained public prominence in 2002 with the publication of David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights.” From this, Wilson spins the conspiratorial tale that I support Horowitz’s brand of political activism, government interventionism and even, bizarrely, Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA’s Professor Watchlist. Each of these claims is false.
Wilson also writes, “There is not one word of criticism against Horowitz in this book.” That too is false. Indeed, the opening paragraph of VanderWeele’s chapter states that Horowitz was rightly criticized “for not respecting the autonomy and scholarly standards of academic disciplines, and for attempting to force change from the top down.”
Of course, Wilson is free to write book reviews in his column as he wishes, but disappointingly we see a rejection of the scholarly norms I am defending in my essay: that evidence should be met with evidence, and arguments with arguments. Scholars holding a wide range of ideological views should be able to present unpopular theories and be met with critiques based on disciplinary standards of evidence. The suppression of ideas we have seen across the academy in recent years, the cancellations and even firings of faculty, typically began when attacks on character were allowed to supplant scholarly critique.
Wilson seemingly defends this trend. He writes, “Attacks on the character of scholars are a perfectly normal part of a free university.” I find this odd. Even if scholars should be free to engage in such departures from professional norms, that does not mean that they should be encouraged to do so. The core of Wilson’s position is that universities are best reformed by persuasion rather than by top-down edicts. I agree that persuasion is a crucial ingredient. But persuasion is a delicate enterprise. Its prospects are dimmed when scholars resort to misinformation, innuendo and character assassination. We have seen this dimming all too often across our campuses in recent years. Regrettably, we see it again in John Wilson’s review of my work.
Here, beneath Wilson’s smoke and verbal pyrotechnics, we may find an issue on which he and I genuinely disagree. He is defending a simple version of what I call the “scholarly sanctification” approach: The expert decisions of professors about hiring and promotion are ipso facto justified, no matter how imbalanced the overall pattern that emerges. On that approach, if we are to widen ideological diversity among the professoriate, it is the professors, with all their human foibles, who must be persuaded to course correct. After all, as Wilson reasonably asks, “What inhuman people should replace their judgments?”
This is an excellent question, and it goes to issues at the heart of Viewpoint Diversity: What It Is, Why We Need It, and How To Get It. As the leader of Heterodox Academy, a membership organization of thousands of professors who love our universities and want to make them better, I would like to believe that individual professors, in their roles as voting members of departments, can quickly improve their universities on the dimension of ideological diversity. For a variety of reasons, some arising from coordination problems, others from lack of social trust in our era, this simple approach currently looks like an uphill trudge.
My own view is that a more practical solution might be found not by replacing the judgment of scholars in their departmental roles, but by supplementing their judgment in ways that deepen it. At the disciplinary level, panels of experts might convene to produce field reports that examine the history and trends of key disciplines, seeking to identify important areas of investigation that have been neglected. Such reports could be used to reinvigorate deliberations within departments—which too often fall into stale patterns—and to inform the deans who approve and oversee faculty searches. At the university level, thicker lines of persuasion might be opened between professors and reform-minded presidents, who should work together as principled allies, seeking creative approaches to make their campus a place of free and open discussion between people who see the world in diverse ways.
These suggestions, which I simply sketch here, lie at the cutting edge of today’s debates about viewpoint diversity. If you are interested in learning more, and in joining this important discussion, I hope you will read our book.
