Thanks for this Massimo! We're navigating a new level of strain on the intersection of politics and academia here in Florida - its been building for some years now, before the current administration. After George Floyd's murder, we were working diligently to consider social injustices in our field (as were many around the country): evolutionary biology having a particularly unsavory past as you know. Looking back, we played our part in what Christopher Rufo understood as the growing momentum of DEI. He then developed a very strategic (and obviously successful) attack on the movement. I still hold out with some of this restructure/ and teaching of some of the relevant history in my evolution class. Its a risky business but I stick to the facts and rely on Joseph Graves recent article https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.3.133.
I came back to this post today in prep for our Stand up for Science rally. Also taking courage from your previous post as I try to figure out what I can do: "Seneca talks about expanding or contracting ourselves in response to external conditions, meaning we should adapt to the situation: If we can do a lot, we should, but if we can only do a little, that’s no excuse for doing nothing. So, reexamine your own life through Seneca’s lens, and see where you can act effectively to make the world even a little bit better. It’s the virtuous thing to do."
Christina, thanks for your comment, it is particularly appreciated, my friend. Yes, we are going through very difficult times, and frankly I don’t see any light at the end of this probably very long tunnel. There may not be a light before I retire (hopefully to Italy)!
Nevertheless, Seneca’s advice still stands: we don’t have an excuse to do nothing just because we can do little. It’s up to us to figure out what we can do, where we can be most effective. Teaching and writing, for people like us, are two of the major ways in which we can make a difference. For the next generation, if not for the current one.
This is close to perfect and helps me and others think about roles and responsibilities. I always felt the same when I taught in secondary schools. We could embark on tangential conversations, trying to be charitable to positions different than our own, and its KEY that students could and should be able to disagree.
In some ways Haidt is doing what Chomsky called for... he is being political about what universities should do. I do not think there is a contradiction there -- bc, as you point out, there is this difference between individuals and institutions.
I totally agree with you, Massimo. In the classroom, the teacher must focus on the subject they are teaching and on the pursuit of truth, as Haidt mentioned. In their private life and outside of school, they are free to share their opinions on any topic.
This might not be directly related to the post, but could you please analyze our morals and ethics from an evolutionary perspective? Many people argue that our morals stem from a Judeo-Christian background, but I’ve also heard that evolution—or more specifically, natural selection—might provide a better explanation.
Victor, the argument that our morality comes from Christianity is philosophically ridiculous and historically nonsensical. If anything, our (meaning the western) specific take on morality is rooted in the Greco-Romans, and subsequently filtered through Christianity.
But neither can be the ultimate explanation. Morality initially evolved as an instinct in intelligent social primates, not just humans. In our species it then further evolved by way of language-mediated cultural evolution. I wrote a few essays here at The Garden that touch on the issue:
Although you said the issue was complicated, it turned out not to be after your explanation. The benefits of clear thinking! In outlook though I'm much less sanguine. I noted the advocay of truth in the Chomsky quotation. Some "academic" "work" has nothing to do with truth seeking but simply ideological advocacy and indoctrination. DEI oaths are a visible tell tale of this. Some scientific work is subtly dishonest in favour a particular outcome. Academics I know here in England walk every day on eggshells for fear of wrong think being overheard. (Currently, wrong think includes (anti)wokery, the Middle East, Trump ..)
Terry, if it’s ideology instead of scholarship then it’s bad scholarship and should not be advocated anyway. If some scientific work is dishonest then it shouldn’t be published or should be retraced, and it certainly shouldn’t be taught. The problem, for me, is whether one should advocate on the basis of sound scholarship.
Because I usually like to lighten things up, I think we should all thank our lucky stars that you have the credentials to fight pseudoscience in the classroom. Honesty ( the acceptance of reality) is sadly lacking in American society. Keep the faith! Lol
I'm glad you made the distinction between the individual - who can and should take a stand - and the institution, which probably should not.
It seems like the main issue here is one of expertise.
A doctor is usually considered to be a person who heals or is expert in a field, although the term originally meant that they were capable of teaching. But in either case, their expertise is at such a level that they are more capable in their field of expertise than most anyone. Therefore, being a public intiellectual in their field is meet and right. It is almost an obligation. To not go public would be like a world class surgeon who teaches but does not practice, even though they can.
Therefore, I would fully expect a world-class expert on topics such as (for example) evolution, pseudoscience or Stoic philosophy to take a public stance on this. To be a doctor to our intellectual and moral ills and to profess their expertise to those of us who value their teaching.
An institution such as a public university, though, should not advocate, just as Haidt maintains. This is because a part of its mandate is to be open to all. This refusal to advocate is part of its mission.
On the other hand, I would not be upset if a Catholic institution such as Notre Dame were to take a principled stance on a moral issue like abortion, especially if it is backed up by the expertise of its theology deparment.
Now then, we can talk about the public intellectual who takes a stand on something outside of their expertise. Chomsky has every right to criticise AI and chatbots - hell, he helped formalize the field that Natural Language Processers came from. But when it comes to his political views - eeeh, not so much. He has every right as the next guy, but I think that means he has every right to express wrong viewpoints as the next guy.
And that applies to institutions and their advocacy. For example, that land acknowledgement thingie. I find it remarkable that anti-colonialism applies to the empires started by post-Enlightenment European countries, but not a discouraging word is uttered about Chinese, Mongol, Maratha, Muslim, Zulu, Ghana, Mali, Mayan, Aztec etc., etc. colonies and empires.
At a religious gathering that I attended last year, everyone who spoke in the public debate on certain issues began with their personal pronouns and land acknowledgement. One particular curmugeon prefaced her remarks with something like this:
My pronouns are she and her, but I'll also answer to "it". I come from Phoenix AZ, the land of the Pipash people and other peoples who came before them all the way back to the Clovis People.
That was a brilliant observation. Human culture since the agricultural age is built upon layers of empires and colonies that literally form the layers that modern day archeologists dig up.
This is another reason why a public institution should refrain from these type of pronouncements. They are simplistic and reductive parroting of the common consensus without the nuance that a doctor from the area of expertise would provide. Better for the institution not to take a stand.
Massimo, there’s a lot here. Let’s look at the cores of these dilemmas.
“Land acknowledgement?”
Your comments are reasonable — after mulling it over. So, yes, humans were here where we live, and now “other” humans are here. They both came here in different millennia, but from different directions. Our local history is worthy of further study, and investigation. Genocide? Most definitely.
"Chomsky: the duty of a public intellectual?”
Your duty? Your responsibility? Not so sure. Your prerogative? Your acting virtuously? Yes!
Case closed.
"Haidt: scholarship is incompatible with activism?"
A university should not take a position on an issues, but it often does to attract endowments, grants, professors, students, and positive publicity. "What happens if [advocacy] conflict(s)?” If you bound yourself within an institution’s position, then your ability to advocate is limited within their walls. That’s ok. If you veer safely from what you want to advocate, make sure it won’t be misconstrued. Not advocating may be the wisest choice.
“Science vs pseudoscience?”
You can teach the demarcation problem. Your knowledge of where that line exists, and your ability to explain why, is your duty to the truth. Deniers listening are out of your control.
“The twin solutions?”
“I do not advocate for the right to die in my classroom … outside the classroom I most definitely do advocate for such right.”
That’s a good practice! Your choosing not to advocate—within the confines of an institution — is not a deviation from teaching in good conscience. It keeps you employed.
"I have my own opinions about the war…We can always talk about them—after the course is over.”
Yes. Good idea.
You must remind yourself that you are under the employ of a local government, and a university charter. This is somewhat to a professor’s disadvantage while under its employ. Politics will never be extracted.
Good read! I am not an academic, but this is roughly what I think as well - I also like your distinction between individuals and institutions. That is definitely important to consider.
While some philosophies argue against the participation in politics, Stoics think differently. As a Stoic and a scientist, aren't you bound to be involved? (I hesitate to use the word activist)
And as a professor, shouldn't you also draw the line with respect to truth - I mean, a lot of people allow their alleged ignorance to pick any position they like ("I'm not a climate scientist but .... ==> climate change denialism") while professors should be very clear about where the boundaries of our knowledge are: holocaust denial is not OK, intelligent design & astrology are both bs. "Equation so-and-so is an accurate description of the link between this and that but if you apply it under circumstances ( ), it won't work"; "the effect of this on that may be (1° or (2), probably not (3)" etc. etc. That's what we expect from professors at least in their professional interaction with the media, with politicians, with students.
Maturits, as a Stoic I am bound to engage in politics, but the Stoics construed politics broadly, and certainly did not equate it with partisanship.
And yes, my role is to teach and point people toward the truth, as best as I understand it. But only within my own limited sphere of competence, and in as a non-partisan way as I can manage.
Fun to review the Odyssey my thirteen year old grandkid reading. We at that age were required to read Homer. Now I feel o,m lashed to the mast navigating the storms
I’ve always enjoyed both writers and XpDwight From a period as freshman in college. Haida was criticized by the editor of science by noting the evils of smart phones, but not documenting with research. The social scientists seem to disagree, but collecting hard data establishing that the effect of “ tik tok” damaging. With a dozen grandkids from seven to 22, they at table are more apt to screen than converse. I long thought Haidt’s concept of disagreeing scholars present their views to assembled students. Did not seem to work
This is splitting literary hairs, but perhaps demonstrative of the many hazards in our environments: Odysseus did not lose his entire crew to the Scylla and Charybdis. He had already lost all but one ship and crew during his voyage home to Ithaca. He then lost six men to the six-headed Scylla, while avoiding complete destruction of ship and crew in the whirlpool Charybdis. The lesser of two evils.
Darin, true, but the end result is that he was the only one to set foot back on Ithaca. Of course, in part this was his crew’s fault, since they couldn’t resist opening the jugs of wind given to them by Aeolus, right before arriving back home.
Facts, friend. Odysseus' last ship and entire crew was finally destroyed by a storm sent by Zeus as punishment for the crew having eaten the sun god Helios' cows, not by Aeolus' wind. But I support your general theme since Odysseus had instructed his crew not to touch the cows but they acted foolishly and ate them anyway...
Right, the Aeolus episode happened earlier. Though to talk about “facts” in the case of a mythological tale is a bit of a stretch. But point taken. I didn’t “fact” check myself and relied on memory. Distracted by what’s happening in the US at the moment. For what is worth, now that I’ve looked it up:
Aeolus entertained Odysseus and his men for a month, questioning Odysseus about all that had happened to him. When Odysseus was ready to set sail again for home, Aeolus gave him a bag made of oxhide in which he had bound "the blustering winds", all except for the west wind, which Aeolus sent forth to bear Odysseus and his men safely home. But when they came within sight of Ithaca their home, Odysseus was overcome with sleep, and his men, thinking that the bag held gifts of gold and silver that Odysseus intended to keep for himself, opened the bag letting loose all the unruly winds which drove their ship all the way back to Aeolus' floating island.
Your discussion Of the individual academic's role seems clear enough. To take an example from my classroom, I taught about radiometric dating. It would not have been appropriate for me to point out that The results I quoted were incompatible with Young Earth creationist religion, although when I was teaching in Texas I feel sure that some of my students made this inference without my help. Much more difficult is the role of the institution. An institution has power, and its actions have consequences. Should it, for example, offer free tuition to people who can show membership of dispossessed tribes? And how should it invest? Tobacco shares, fossil fuel shares, armaments, companies based in Israel, or in China?
Paul, I find that even at the individual level sometimes things are not that clear. if I teach a class about climate change, for instance, or pseudoscience, I know some of the students will interpret it as activism on my part.
And yeah, institutionally it’s even more complicated. I don’t have specific answers, I just think both opposite extremes—Haidt style “absolutely no activism” vs some of my colleagues’s “absolutely activism!”—are both profoundly objectionable.
Individuals, at least in the sciences, can teach a clear consensus with a clear conscience even though they know that some ideologically motivated people will regards them as activist. I'm talking rather about the unavoidable problems that face an institution, because of its power, so that it cannot walk away from making ideological choices (and IMO the choice to pursue maximum return on endowment income is itself ideological, and should be discussed as such).
Agreed, individuals have a relatively easier time walking the boundary between teaching and activism, if they pay attention. My take on institutions is that they should engage in as few overtly ideological statements as possible while at the same time being open to publicly discuss the few that they feel they have to make. I agree about the inherently ideological nature of investments of endowments.
Thanks for this Massimo! We're navigating a new level of strain on the intersection of politics and academia here in Florida - its been building for some years now, before the current administration. After George Floyd's murder, we were working diligently to consider social injustices in our field (as were many around the country): evolutionary biology having a particularly unsavory past as you know. Looking back, we played our part in what Christopher Rufo understood as the growing momentum of DEI. He then developed a very strategic (and obviously successful) attack on the movement. I still hold out with some of this restructure/ and teaching of some of the relevant history in my evolution class. Its a risky business but I stick to the facts and rely on Joseph Graves recent article https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2023.85.3.133.
I came back to this post today in prep for our Stand up for Science rally. Also taking courage from your previous post as I try to figure out what I can do: "Seneca talks about expanding or contracting ourselves in response to external conditions, meaning we should adapt to the situation: If we can do a lot, we should, but if we can only do a little, that’s no excuse for doing nothing. So, reexamine your own life through Seneca’s lens, and see where you can act effectively to make the world even a little bit better. It’s the virtuous thing to do."
Christina, thanks for your comment, it is particularly appreciated, my friend. Yes, we are going through very difficult times, and frankly I don’t see any light at the end of this probably very long tunnel. There may not be a light before I retire (hopefully to Italy)!
Nevertheless, Seneca’s advice still stands: we don’t have an excuse to do nothing just because we can do little. It’s up to us to figure out what we can do, where we can be most effective. Teaching and writing, for people like us, are two of the major ways in which we can make a difference. For the next generation, if not for the current one.
This is close to perfect and helps me and others think about roles and responsibilities. I always felt the same when I taught in secondary schools. We could embark on tangential conversations, trying to be charitable to positions different than our own, and its KEY that students could and should be able to disagree.
In some ways Haidt is doing what Chomsky called for... he is being political about what universities should do. I do not think there is a contradiction there -- bc, as you point out, there is this difference between individuals and institutions.
I totally agree with you, Massimo. In the classroom, the teacher must focus on the subject they are teaching and on the pursuit of truth, as Haidt mentioned. In their private life and outside of school, they are free to share their opinions on any topic.
This might not be directly related to the post, but could you please analyze our morals and ethics from an evolutionary perspective? Many people argue that our morals stem from a Judeo-Christian background, but I’ve also heard that evolution—or more specifically, natural selection—might provide a better explanation.
Victor, the argument that our morality comes from Christianity is philosophically ridiculous and historically nonsensical. If anything, our (meaning the western) specific take on morality is rooted in the Greco-Romans, and subsequently filtered through Christianity.
But neither can be the ultimate explanation. Morality initially evolved as an instinct in intelligent social primates, not just humans. In our species it then further evolved by way of language-mediated cultural evolution. I wrote a few essays here at The Garden that touch on the issue:
https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/is-it-true-that-you-cant-derive-an
https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/on-the-objectivity-of-ethical-judgments
https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/what-does-it-mean-to-live-according
Grazie mille, Massimo!
I'm forgetting the most blatant wrong think - "there are two sexes".
Although you said the issue was complicated, it turned out not to be after your explanation. The benefits of clear thinking! In outlook though I'm much less sanguine. I noted the advocay of truth in the Chomsky quotation. Some "academic" "work" has nothing to do with truth seeking but simply ideological advocacy and indoctrination. DEI oaths are a visible tell tale of this. Some scientific work is subtly dishonest in favour a particular outcome. Academics I know here in England walk every day on eggshells for fear of wrong think being overheard. (Currently, wrong think includes (anti)wokery, the Middle East, Trump ..)
Terry, if it’s ideology instead of scholarship then it’s bad scholarship and should not be advocated anyway. If some scientific work is dishonest then it shouldn’t be published or should be retraced, and it certainly shouldn’t be taught. The problem, for me, is whether one should advocate on the basis of sound scholarship.
Spot on thankyou Massimo
Because I usually like to lighten things up, I think we should all thank our lucky stars that you have the credentials to fight pseudoscience in the classroom. Honesty ( the acceptance of reality) is sadly lacking in American society. Keep the faith! Lol
Thanks Ron, appreciated!
I'm glad you made the distinction between the individual - who can and should take a stand - and the institution, which probably should not.
It seems like the main issue here is one of expertise.
A doctor is usually considered to be a person who heals or is expert in a field, although the term originally meant that they were capable of teaching. But in either case, their expertise is at such a level that they are more capable in their field of expertise than most anyone. Therefore, being a public intiellectual in their field is meet and right. It is almost an obligation. To not go public would be like a world class surgeon who teaches but does not practice, even though they can.
Therefore, I would fully expect a world-class expert on topics such as (for example) evolution, pseudoscience or Stoic philosophy to take a public stance on this. To be a doctor to our intellectual and moral ills and to profess their expertise to those of us who value their teaching.
An institution such as a public university, though, should not advocate, just as Haidt maintains. This is because a part of its mandate is to be open to all. This refusal to advocate is part of its mission.
On the other hand, I would not be upset if a Catholic institution such as Notre Dame were to take a principled stance on a moral issue like abortion, especially if it is backed up by the expertise of its theology deparment.
Now then, we can talk about the public intellectual who takes a stand on something outside of their expertise. Chomsky has every right to criticise AI and chatbots - hell, he helped formalize the field that Natural Language Processers came from. But when it comes to his political views - eeeh, not so much. He has every right as the next guy, but I think that means he has every right to express wrong viewpoints as the next guy.
And that applies to institutions and their advocacy. For example, that land acknowledgement thingie. I find it remarkable that anti-colonialism applies to the empires started by post-Enlightenment European countries, but not a discouraging word is uttered about Chinese, Mongol, Maratha, Muslim, Zulu, Ghana, Mali, Mayan, Aztec etc., etc. colonies and empires.
At a religious gathering that I attended last year, everyone who spoke in the public debate on certain issues began with their personal pronouns and land acknowledgement. One particular curmugeon prefaced her remarks with something like this:
My pronouns are she and her, but I'll also answer to "it". I come from Phoenix AZ, the land of the Pipash people and other peoples who came before them all the way back to the Clovis People.
That was a brilliant observation. Human culture since the agricultural age is built upon layers of empires and colonies that literally form the layers that modern day archeologists dig up.
This is another reason why a public institution should refrain from these type of pronouncements. They are simplistic and reductive parroting of the common consensus without the nuance that a doctor from the area of expertise would provide. Better for the institution not to take a stand.
Massimo, there’s a lot here. Let’s look at the cores of these dilemmas.
“Land acknowledgement?”
Your comments are reasonable — after mulling it over. So, yes, humans were here where we live, and now “other” humans are here. They both came here in different millennia, but from different directions. Our local history is worthy of further study, and investigation. Genocide? Most definitely.
"Chomsky: the duty of a public intellectual?”
Your duty? Your responsibility? Not so sure. Your prerogative? Your acting virtuously? Yes!
Case closed.
"Haidt: scholarship is incompatible with activism?"
A university should not take a position on an issues, but it often does to attract endowments, grants, professors, students, and positive publicity. "What happens if [advocacy] conflict(s)?” If you bound yourself within an institution’s position, then your ability to advocate is limited within their walls. That’s ok. If you veer safely from what you want to advocate, make sure it won’t be misconstrued. Not advocating may be the wisest choice.
“Science vs pseudoscience?”
You can teach the demarcation problem. Your knowledge of where that line exists, and your ability to explain why, is your duty to the truth. Deniers listening are out of your control.
“The twin solutions?”
“I do not advocate for the right to die in my classroom … outside the classroom I most definitely do advocate for such right.”
That’s a good practice! Your choosing not to advocate—within the confines of an institution — is not a deviation from teaching in good conscience. It keeps you employed.
"I have my own opinions about the war…We can always talk about them—after the course is over.”
Yes. Good idea.
You must remind yourself that you are under the employ of a local government, and a university charter. This is somewhat to a professor’s disadvantage while under its employ. Politics will never be extracted.
(Not to belittle our local genocidal history, but did you know New York’s oldest, and coldest, case file from 400 years ago? 😬 https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/nyregion/05murder.html )
🙃
A great read and an example of how to guide your life rationally.
Thank you, appreciated!
Good read! I am not an academic, but this is roughly what I think as well - I also like your distinction between individuals and institutions. That is definitely important to consider.
Thank you!
Interesting one! Thank you, Massimo.
While some philosophies argue against the participation in politics, Stoics think differently. As a Stoic and a scientist, aren't you bound to be involved? (I hesitate to use the word activist)
And as a professor, shouldn't you also draw the line with respect to truth - I mean, a lot of people allow their alleged ignorance to pick any position they like ("I'm not a climate scientist but .... ==> climate change denialism") while professors should be very clear about where the boundaries of our knowledge are: holocaust denial is not OK, intelligent design & astrology are both bs. "Equation so-and-so is an accurate description of the link between this and that but if you apply it under circumstances ( ), it won't work"; "the effect of this on that may be (1° or (2), probably not (3)" etc. etc. That's what we expect from professors at least in their professional interaction with the media, with politicians, with students.
Maturits, as a Stoic I am bound to engage in politics, but the Stoics construed politics broadly, and certainly did not equate it with partisanship.
And yes, my role is to teach and point people toward the truth, as best as I understand it. But only within my own limited sphere of competence, and in as a non-partisan way as I can manage.
Fun to review the Odyssey my thirteen year old grandkid reading. We at that age were required to read Homer. Now I feel o,m lashed to the mast navigating the storms
I’ve always enjoyed both writers and XpDwight From a period as freshman in college. Haida was criticized by the editor of science by noting the evils of smart phones, but not documenting with research. The social scientists seem to disagree, but collecting hard data establishing that the effect of “ tik tok” damaging. With a dozen grandkids from seven to 22, they at table are more apt to screen than converse. I long thought Haidt’s concept of disagreeing scholars present their views to assembled students. Did not seem to work
This is splitting literary hairs, but perhaps demonstrative of the many hazards in our environments: Odysseus did not lose his entire crew to the Scylla and Charybdis. He had already lost all but one ship and crew during his voyage home to Ithaca. He then lost six men to the six-headed Scylla, while avoiding complete destruction of ship and crew in the whirlpool Charybdis. The lesser of two evils.
Darin, true, but the end result is that he was the only one to set foot back on Ithaca. Of course, in part this was his crew’s fault, since they couldn’t resist opening the jugs of wind given to them by Aeolus, right before arriving back home.
Facts, friend. Odysseus' last ship and entire crew was finally destroyed by a storm sent by Zeus as punishment for the crew having eaten the sun god Helios' cows, not by Aeolus' wind. But I support your general theme since Odysseus had instructed his crew not to touch the cows but they acted foolishly and ate them anyway...
Right, the Aeolus episode happened earlier. Though to talk about “facts” in the case of a mythological tale is a bit of a stretch. But point taken. I didn’t “fact” check myself and relied on memory. Distracted by what’s happening in the US at the moment. For what is worth, now that I’ve looked it up:
Aeolus entertained Odysseus and his men for a month, questioning Odysseus about all that had happened to him. When Odysseus was ready to set sail again for home, Aeolus gave him a bag made of oxhide in which he had bound "the blustering winds", all except for the west wind, which Aeolus sent forth to bear Odysseus and his men safely home. But when they came within sight of Ithaca their home, Odysseus was overcome with sleep, and his men, thinking that the bag held gifts of gold and silver that Odysseus intended to keep for himself, opened the bag letting loose all the unruly winds which drove their ship all the way back to Aeolus' floating island.
Yep, much foolishness going on during that epic voyage!
Darin, thanks for the correction, I’ve edited the post accordingly.
As you know, they are cautionary tales for the rest of us. And somehow we never learn the lessons they impart.
Not sure how exactly your essay fits with that of Anthony Appiah in today's Times. But I'm sure they do fit together somehow.
I am a huge admirer on Appiah. But I didn’t see his piece in the Times, at least now in the online version. Could you share a link?
https://wapo.st/3Akf7Qf
Thank you, I’ll check it out!
Yes, it's the Post. It's on fallibilism. Not sure how to share it with you, but if you get the Post, "fallibilism" is in the title.
Massimo, I think it may be the Post. I'll look and send a link.
Your discussion Of the individual academic's role seems clear enough. To take an example from my classroom, I taught about radiometric dating. It would not have been appropriate for me to point out that The results I quoted were incompatible with Young Earth creationist religion, although when I was teaching in Texas I feel sure that some of my students made this inference without my help. Much more difficult is the role of the institution. An institution has power, and its actions have consequences. Should it, for example, offer free tuition to people who can show membership of dispossessed tribes? And how should it invest? Tobacco shares, fossil fuel shares, armaments, companies based in Israel, or in China?
Paul, I find that even at the individual level sometimes things are not that clear. if I teach a class about climate change, for instance, or pseudoscience, I know some of the students will interpret it as activism on my part.
And yeah, institutionally it’s even more complicated. I don’t have specific answers, I just think both opposite extremes—Haidt style “absolutely no activism” vs some of my colleagues’s “absolutely activism!”—are both profoundly objectionable.
Individuals, at least in the sciences, can teach a clear consensus with a clear conscience even though they know that some ideologically motivated people will regards them as activist. I'm talking rather about the unavoidable problems that face an institution, because of its power, so that it cannot walk away from making ideological choices (and IMO the choice to pursue maximum return on endowment income is itself ideological, and should be discussed as such).
Agreed, individuals have a relatively easier time walking the boundary between teaching and activism, if they pay attention. My take on institutions is that they should engage in as few overtly ideological statements as possible while at the same time being open to publicly discuss the few that they feel they have to make. I agree about the inherently ideological nature of investments of endowments.