Explanation of the CAFT Values

The Commitment to Academic Freedom and Tolerance (CAFT) expresses a number of key principles, namely: That the special purpose of the university is to create a space for rigorous and open inquiry in pursuit of truth; that higher education is about preparing students to be autonomous participants in intellectual and civic life; and that these missions require the maintenance of certain values in university life, among them tolerance, pluralism, and respect for the individual. The purpose of this document is to explain these propositions in greater detail, and, more broadly, to show how the CAFT principles help sustain a free society both in the academy and beyond. 

Rigorous and Open Pursuit of Truth

We regard it as axiomatic that a key purpose of the university* is to create a space for the rigorous and open pursuit of truth. To be sure, universities do many things. They may teach practical and technical skills, engage in community development, provide healthcare, produce art, support agriculture or industry, and so on. Yet many organizations play these roles. What distinguishes the university from other institutions, and what gives it its unique reason for being, is its commitment to supporting rigorous inquiry in a context relatively free of political, economic, or ideological constraints. In this the university provides a valuable service to society. Some of the discoveries and inventions that have most advanced human well-being were born of research that had no obvious immediate practical application or commercial value. The university is uniquely supportive of such forms of inquiry and of the creation of knowledge as a public good. Moreover, we simply expect our universities, as custodians of our society’s knowledge, to test hypotheses and vet claims in a rigorous and open way, without prejudice.

The rigorous and open pursuit of truth requires the maintenance of certain conditions – conditions that also help prepare students to be mature, autonomous participants in civic and political life. Let us say more about these conditions and how they are supported by the CAFT principles. 

Academic Freedom, Free Speech, and Intellectual Diversity

If inquiry is to tend towards truth, then people must be able to put forth novel hypotheses, including those that might be viewed as controversial. The need for such intellectual freedom is clear. It is both a premise and a lesson of scientific investigation that the truth is difficult to know. The history of science is filled with examples of taken-for-granted ideas being proven untrue or inadequate. This process of replacing worse ideas with better ones may require challenging deeply-entrenched and widely-held assumptions. Accepted ideas about what entities exist in the world, the causes of phenomena, who has or ought to have more or less power, what is or is not a relevant problem, and so on may require questioning. Thus the values of free speech, academic freedom, and intellectual diversity embodied in the CAFT statement are more than mere priorities, preferences, or predilections. They are necessary conditions of scientific inquiry itself.** The principles are what allow imperfect beings to posit and explore new ideas and thereby to move together towards truth over time. Had proponents of the miasmatic theory of disease been able to silence the advocates of germ theory, for example, the advancements of modern medicine that have so helped humankind would either have been stymied or delayed.

It is sometimes argued that certain ideas ought not be presented for discussion on the grounds that they are hurtful or damaging. It is indeed true that some ideas can cause offense. However, it does not follow from this fact that free speech or intellectual diversity require curtailment. Curtailing free speech creates its own harms. It hurts those who are being silenced. It is also not a good tool for dealing with odious or mistaken ideas in most cases. Suppressed viewpoints do not simply evaporate. Often their advocates will simply create alternative forums in which to express them. Once that happens, bad ideas can be exchanged and developed with even less critical feedback. Furthermore, the distrust of authorities bred by censorship can drive people to these very same alternative forums. Censorship can also make people want to say offensive things as a means of affirming their freedom. None of this helps anyone. Moreover, suppressing free speech can quite directly harm those it is supposed to protect. Consider, for example, that, historically, homosexuality was sometimes decriminalized on the grounds that it is a “disease” over which people have no control. This was, at the time, an enlightened opinion – the “right thing” to believe. What if people had been prevented from ever questioning this view? We would still be stuck with the idea that homosexuality is some sort of disease. So we ought not to shut down debate on controversial issues based on the assumption that we’ve hit on the right answer for all times.

What all of this means is that, in all but the most exceptional cases, the appropriate solution to controversy is not to forcibly shrink the public square, but rather to affirm the principles by which it is sustained.

Respect for Individual Autonomy and Freedom of Conscience

One such principle is the respect for individual autonomy and freedom of conscience mentioned in the CAFT statement. By these words, we mean that academic (and other) communities should protect the right of each individual to make meaningful decisions about what is right and wrong, what is true and false, and what their interests are.

We know that humans are flawed and biased creatures. Yet they also possess an ability to weigh evidence, to reason, and to make meaningful distinctions among true and false, better and worse. We know this intuitively from our own experience. The existence of such capacities is also a premise of science, self-rule, and trial by jury. And to the extent that people’s capacity for rational judgment is underdeveloped, there is perhaps no better way to cultivate it than by fostering robust public deliberation in which rigorous standards of evidence and logic are upheld. And so it should be with controversy. If an idea is untrue, or if its harms exceed its benefits, let that be demonstrated publicly, with evidence and rational argument. If it is claimed that certain arguments are biased or tainted by the power structure in which they were produced, let the evidence by which this conclusion was reached be submitted in the public square for consideration as well. Let the interlocutor who can provide the most compelling account of the available information – and not the person who can control what information is discussable – win.

It can be unsatisfying and difficult to put issues up for public debate. One’s favored argument may not carry the day. There is a risk that decisions made by individuals in a context of freedom will include errors and mistakes. Yet we are aware of no better way to recognize and correct our mistakes, to learn and grow, over the long run than by engaging in ongoing open public deliberation. This holds for the academic community just as it does for society in general. 

​

Furthermore, it should be noted that, when we emphasize our capacities for reason and making moral judgments, we call attention to what we share as humans. When we focus on what we have in common – rather than on what divides us – we become more willing to trust, to take risks, and to pursue the enlightened path. Thus respect for individual autonomy can make for stronger communities in the long run.

Tolerance

Another key principle by which we can sustain a robust public sphere in the face of controversy and disagreement is tolerance: the ability to meet beliefs and values other than one’s own with forbearance.

Encountering objectionable ideas is part of life. We all must contend with views we find offensive – and with our sometimes strong personal reactions to those views. The principle of tolerance teaches that we must try our best to be willing to agree to disagree in most such cases. The point is not that we should avoid debate or give up on trying to persuade one another; it is that we should try to preserve the space in which disagreement can exist. Tolerance is a living out of the idea that we ought to be able to table a contentious debate and take it back up at a later date, and live peaceably in the meantime. Experience teaches us that most people are capable of being tolerant, of taking a live and let live attitude in life. 

Moreover there are good reasons for being tolerant. Though people can and do make reasoned decisions, it is also true – as we have acknowledged – that our knowledge of the world and our cognitive capacities are limited. We make oversights. Any reflective person can see that they have believed things that later proved to be wrong on a factual, moral, or pragmatic basis. The universe of things we do not know will, almost certainly, always be vast. Thus we all have reason to hold our current ideas somewhat lightly and to be tolerant of others: They may have a piece of the truth we lack. Intolerance amounts to a claim that one has already arrived at a complete picture of the truth; taking this position, in turn, implies that there is no need for the university itself. History shows us that intolerance also invites violence and authoritarianism. If you know that you are right and others are wrong, why not use force to bring them to the light?

Of course, tolerance and respect for the individual should not be taken to mean that no social rules should exist. Civility is important. Without it, public deliberations would tend to fall apart. Moreover, if all viewpoints in society had to be given equal weight, scientific discussions would never get off the ground. Thus tolerance is not an absolute. However, these realities ought not be used as an excuse for dismissing the principle of tolerance or any other valued principle mentioned in this document. Academic communities must try to maintain these principles as best they can, recognizing that abridgments of a cherished value like tolerance are costly and always inherently dangerous, even when justified. Such abridgements should not be undertaken lightly and certainly not in response to the zeitgeist or passing trends.

A Thriving Academic Community

The values outlined above are the touchstones of a thriving academic community. When we protect free expression and open inquiry, we create a space in which people are free to pursue truth. When we respect individual autonomy, we help people develop and exercise their most precious human capacities. When we are tolerant, we create a community in which free people can coexist peacefully.

We believe that a university upholding these values will tend to produce graduates who can think for themselves, see the good in others, compromise, respect others’ rights and autonomy, put their own suffering in perspective, and meet life’s inevitable burdens and disappointments with humility and perseverance. In fostering these qualities, the CAFT principles help students to thrive in, and sustain, a free and diverse society.

​

​

​

​

* To make this document more readable, we have chosen to use the term “university” in broad way, to refer to any institution of higher learning, i.e.: A university, a college within a university, a freestanding college or technical school, and so on.  

** Here we use the terms “science” and “scientific inquiry” in their broadest sense, to refer to any form of systematic investigation that is guided by some criterion of truth.