As public policy is formed in response to salient threats (pandemics, climate change, pernicious social media), the vast resources of the scientific community and academia are frequently enlisted to inform, temper and refine appropriate remedies. When mandating changes in human behavior or activity through the force of law, government relies on objective truth, manifest as scientific findings, to ensure acceptance and compliance. Of course, political and ideological considerations have significant impact as well, be they aligned with objective evidence or in conflict with it.
Tension between objective truth and political value animates much of the contemporary conversation about public policy formation, both at the academy and in the social realm. Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Paul Bloom surveys the inherent biases of authoritative publications in selecting or rejecting scientific articles and reports.
“One solution is to reform journals so there isn’t political bias in what gets accepted and rejected,” Bloom argues. However, “decision-making is in the hands of individual editors and reviewers, and some think that articles going against their political position shouldn’t be published.”
Another remedy is for consumers of information to be more scrutinous or even skeptical of claims by science that align too closely with those of political advocates.
“The problem with this solution is that it assumes we all share the goal of getting things right, and that isn’t always the case,” Bloom states. “Pursuing other goals at the expense of truth … makes the world worse. We should be primarily interested in accuracy, if only because we’re more likely to solve … problems … if we get our facts right.”
Bloom’s essay validates the principles and standards of quality established by NAAE. Value-added accreditation of colleges and universities must explicitly establish expectations for independent truth seeking and truth sharing:
“…fearless pursuit of knowledge, discernible integrity in innovation… exploration of philosophies free from censorship or retribution … rooted in strong ethical standards that emphasize honesty, transparency, and respect for the interconnectedness of humanity.”
(NAAE Principle: “Humanitas Semper”)
Furthermore, the aspiration for ethical human formation linked closely to the independent pursuit of truth must be integrated into the fabric of the accreditation code:
“… supports freedom of thought and independent inquiry.” (NAAE Standards 1, 4)
“… respecting the individual right for open inquiry.” (NAAE Standard 2)
“…ensure an appropriate array of ideological perspectives are represented.” (NAAE Standard 3)
By codifying expectations for the independent and objective pursuit of truth, NAAE is acknowledging that such enterprise is not necessarily organic or systematically rewarded and encouraged by the academy. Rather, to honor the objective and scientific credibility of academic research, and the value it holds for the formation of students, truth seeking and truth sharing must be demonstrable and verifiable within the institutional effectiveness ethic of the college or university.
NAAE accreditation brings that emphasis and explicit requirements to bear through its quality assurance enterprise. The principles strongly align with Bloom, who concludes in his essay:
“I wish the incentives for truth-seeking were higher …where we cheer on those who work hard to get things right … even if the truth clashes with the narratives we’re most fond of. But maybe this is a naive hope.”
Naivete is mitigated through sophistication, methods, and discipline. It is the essence of the work of the National Association for Academic Excellence.