Opponents of programs for racial, ethnic, or gender diversity often argue that while these policies are misguided, an appropriate sort of diversity is viewpoint diversity, also known as intellectual diversity. What is this idea, and should it be supported?
In one sense, it might refer to breadth of coverage. For example, a philosophy department that offers no ethics or political philosophy would be well-advised, when making its next appointment, to prefer candidates who can cover this area. If doing so is understood as enhancing intellectual diversity, few would doubt that the policy is reasonable.
Most defenders of position diversity, however, have a more controversial policy in mind. They urge the appointment of faculty who hold certain opinions. For instance, if all the current members of a department are atheists or agnostics, position diversity calls for the next appointment to be a theist. Similarly, if all are political liberals, then preference should be given to appointing a political conservative.
This proposal has serious deficiencies. First, the assumption appears to be that professors defend particular claims and seek to convince others to share their point of view. The aim of teaching, however, is not indoctrination but education. For a teacher to defend personal beliefs is appropriate, but regarding disputed issues, students should be provided with the strongest reasons in support of opposing positions, then encouraged to develop their own views. Forcing anyone to accept the teacher’s opinion regarding a debatable matter is professorial malpractice.
A second difficulty is oversimplification. Someone may identify as conservative yet favor an increase in legal immigration, while a liberal may defend additions to the military’s budget. A failure to recognize that one designation can refer to those who hold some widely different outlooks undermines the practice of classifying people with a single label. Indeed, the most extraordinary thinkers often transcend ordinary categories. Was Spinoza a theist or atheist? Was Lincoln a liberal or conservative? Such questions illustrate the folly of pigeonholing.
A third problem is the assumption that a person’s intellectual position never changes. An atheist may find faith; a theist may lose it. Sidney Hook was a leading Marxist scholar who eventually rejected Marxism. Robert Nozick developed an influential defense of a minimal state after holding an opposing position. In short, don’t count on a thinker’s displaying obduracy.
Fourth and finally, given the stiff competition for faculty positions, if a search is announced for a conservative, what prevents a candidate from claiming to be such and then later announcing a conversion to liberalism? I once knew a student who masqueraded as a liberal but, after receiving tenure, revealed his commitment to conservatism. Those who support position diversity encourage such chicanery.
A department does not enhance its efforts to achieve excellence by requiring that the only candidates who should bother applying for an open position are those who espouse a particular point of view. Such a restriction weakens the candidate pool by driving away both those who do not subscribe to the preferred doctrine and those who agree with it but are uncomfortable being labeled.
In sum, a college or university should search not only for the most promising researcher and teacher, but also for one who is scrupulous in presenting fairly the views of serious opponents. To the extent that faculty are unwilling to acknowledge strong arguments against their views, they shortchange their students and make less plausible the case against position diversity.
Steven M. Cahn
Steven M. Cahn is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Among the books he has authored are Professors as Teachers (2022), Exploring Academic Ethics (2024), From Student to Scholar: A Candid Guide to Becoming a Professor, Second Edition (2024), Religion Within Reason, Second Edition (2025), and the recently published Pathways Through Academia (2025).
