On the occasion of Constitution Day, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos delivered her first major address on free speech in higher education – and she didn’t hold back.
In her prepared remarks at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, DeVos went beyond merely describing the problem to actually diagnosing its cause: ascendant moral relativism. In that regard, her take was sophisticated, and far more interesting than most complaints about the state of speech in education. “The issue is that we have abandoned truth,” the secretary contended, pointing a finger at “the pernicious philosophy of relativism” which, she said, “teaches that there is no objective truth.”
“Nothing is objectively good or objectively evil,” DeVos continued, summarizing the proliferating worldview. “Truth is only personal point of view, fleeting circumstance and one’s own desires. And those views, those experiences, those desires can be understood only by those who live them. Nothing else and no one else matters.”
“Our self-centered culture denies truth because acknowledging it would mean certain feelings or certain ideas could be wrong. But no one wants to be wrong. It is much easier to feel comfortable in saying there is no truth. Nothing that could challenge what we want to believe,” said DeVos, later adding, “if ultimately there are no facts— if there is no objective truth— then there is no real learning.”
DeVos relied on the examples of several campus controversies (including ones involving herself), and research from Brookings, the RAND Corporation, and Jonathan Haidt, among others, to underscore the severity of the problem. She also endorsed the University of Chicago’s statement on free speech that dozens of universities (still too few) have formally adopted.
“Today, freedom, and the defense of it, is needed more than ever, especially on our nation’s campuses,” DeVos argued, conceding that “precious few” of them “can be described” as free and open, conditions upon which, she contended, real learning is contingent.
Though the secretary noted rightfully this problem is one of a “civic sickness” that government on its own “cannot solve,” she actually outlined steps students can take to improve the discourse.
“Begin with yourself,” she urged. “In our fast-paced, noisy world, it is healthy to develop an interior life. Be still, pray, reflect, review, contemplate.”
“Then listen, really listen, and then personally engage those with whom we disagree,” DeVos continued, further extolling the virtues of using “our two ears proportionally to our one mouth,” in order “to speak with conviction when we’re certain and listen with intent when we’re not, humbly leaving open the possibility that even when we feel quite certain, we might be quite wrong.”
DeVos asked students to “understand the responsibility that goes along with freedom,” quoting Saint John Paul II’s statement that “freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
She outlined the “Golden Rule of Free Speech” thusly: “seeking to understand as to be understood.”
The central argument of her address was encapsulated well in one line towards the end. “Abandoning truth creates confusion. Confusion leads to censorship. And censorship inevitably invites chaos on campuses, and elsewhere,” DeVos asserted.
And she’s right. For those interested in the conversation about speech in higher education, DeVos’ entire remarks are worth watching. It’s one thing to complain about the problem; it’s another to dig deeper and probe its deeper cultural roots. The rot that moral relativism has spurred in academia is genuinely at the heart of this conflict, and it gets far less attention that it should.
As secretary, DeVos has addressed the topic in other forums, but never at this length or depth. Attorney General Jeff Session has taken steps to pursue the matter as well. The president, for his part, has downplayed the problem.
DeVos is correct to note the problem is beyond our government’s capacity to solve. But it’s at least of some comfort to know her department actually acknowledges the crisis for what it is, and is actively interested in doing what can be done to address it.
