A Conversation with Connie Buehler: Why Alumni Must Speak Up

University alumni are key stakeholders who can help change the direction of their alma maters.

Connie Buehler is a member of the executive committee of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, a consortium of independent alumni organizations fighting for free speech, viewpoint diversity, and academic freedom at their alma maters. She is also a founding member of Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse.

Why this conversation matters: In 2023, public trust in higher education dropped to a historic low of 36 percent. Only 26 percent of Republicans are confident in U.S. higher education. Alumni are key stakeholders who can help realign universities with their mission and regain the public trust.

RtW: Many people think of alumni primarily as donors or fans of their alma mater’s sports teams. Why did AFSA conclude that alumni have a responsibility to become actively involved in defending free expression and academic freedom on campus?

Buehler: Almost all AFSA members began as strong supporters of and donors to their alma mater. Each of us became aware reforms were necessary in different ways: by having a child or grandchild attend our alma mater and hear from them that “the only way to receive an A is to agree with the Professor’s viewpoint”; or finding out there was no free expression statement on campus; or seeing a university president post their political viewpoint or remove historical markers, thereby implying these actions represented all alums’ viewpoints; or learning of a student who had been persecuted for “standing for the national anthem”, “being Jewish”, or “defending the honor code.” The common theme was observing the suppression of true intellectual diversity.

RtW: AFSA’s central premise is that alumni can be a powerful force for reform. What unique leverage do alumni possess that students, faculty, trustees, or legislators often lack, and how have you seen that influence work in practice?

Buehler: Alumni are the only university stakeholders who can make truly independent judgments about the direction of the university. Unlike students, faculty, or trustees, we face no personal repercussions when we criticize our alma maters. As a result, we can make principled statements and take strong stances without fear of retribution.

As an alliance of alumni groups across the country, each AFSA group has its “special magic” in influencing its alma mater. Although we never publicly ask alumni to withhold their contributions, that is often the result once they hear of the issues that AFSA highlights. Administrations often only act when significant donors withhold support. We also learn from each other, and it is in that partnership where true success happens.

RtW: Critics sometimes argue that alumni should support universities financially and leave academic matters to faculty or university administrators. How do you respond to that criticism?

Buehler: If our universities were still supporting intellectual diversity, then alumni would continue to donate gladly. It is the goal of AFSA members to “work ourselves out of a job” and go back to supporting professors and administrators. But AFSA has shown unequivocally that universities have failed to support free speech, viewpoint diversity, and academic freedom. Alumni should have no compunction whatsoever about discontinuing their financial support. In the real world, donors do not blindly support organizations that fail to live up to their promises. If the faculty and administrations of our alma maters won’t support intellectual diversity and free speech on our campuses, they shouldn’t get our hard-earned annual donations.

RtW: If a university genuinely wanted to improve its culture of free inquiry, what are the two or three most important steps its leaders should take right now?

Buehler: First, eradicate DEI across all spectrums of the campus, starting with admissions, instruction, and general education. Too often, students come with pre-conceived ideologies, and without boundless, safe debate that challenges these ideas, limited growth occurs. Colleges’ goals should be to encourage students to truly think, not repeat what the campus culture finds acceptable.

Second, require college presidents to enforce the free speech statements they have passed. That means emphasizing their importance at orientation, in classrooms, and through their actions.

Third, leaders should allow all speakers to come on campus—both liberal and conservative—not just those who espouse their monolithic viewpoint. They should not, at any time, allow students to shout down or disrupt those events.

RtW: Looking ahead, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of free speech and viewpoint diversity in higher education? What developments will determine whether the next decade brings renewal or further decline?

Buehler: AFSA’s mission is to relentlessly fight for true intellectual diversity and free speech on campus. But unless the composition of university faculty changes, we are pessimistic. A half-century ago, faculty universally loved America, regardless of political party affiliation. That is no longer the case. The Far Left now dominates university faculty and administrations. Moderate and conservative perspectives are not tolerated. But the existential crisis created by a lack of public trust and demographic decline could be the catalyst universities need. Twenty years from now, current universities may be radically reconstructed—or they may cease to exist.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Over the past decade, many Americans have realized that colleges and universities have diverged significantly from their truth-seeking missions. Open inquiry, civil discourse, free speech, and viewpoint diversity have been the victims of this realignment. Alumni could be key stakeholders in reversing this trend.