In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, I explore a question that sits at the center of today’s higher-education debates—and is too often reduced to partisan slogans: Is academic freedom a liberal value, a conservative value, or something else entirely?
I argue that academic freedom is structural, not ideological—much like due process or an independent judiciary. It exists not to protect favored ideas, but to protect the process by which ideas are tested, challenged, and debated without fear of government or institutional retaliation.
This episode engages the experience of conservative professor Richard Vatz, who has written about feeling marginalized within a predominantly liberal academic culture, and it also considers the thoughtful rebuttal offered by Jennifer Ballengee, chair of the faculty senate. Rather than choosing sides, the conversation asks a harder question: How do we protect academic freedom for everyone—especially when cultural imbalance, institutional responsibility, and political pressure collide?
The podcast also reflects on the dangers of government intrusion into curricular content, the difference between cultural disagreement and constitutional violation, and why weakening academic freedom in the name of ideological “correction” ultimately harms both the left and the right.
This episode is a companion to the essay of the same title published on my Substack, where you’ll find links to the original articles discussed here as well as research studies that inform several of the conclusions explored in the conversation.
If we care about justice in education, we must defend academic freedom not as a partisan tool, but as the architecture that makes genuine inquiry—and democratic pluralism—possible.
Justice ReDesigned is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it.
