Jay Greene and Frederick Hess write about the growing problem of academic scholarly associations playing politics.

Higher education is thick with academic associations. These associations can play a vital role in fostering a robust exchange of ideas and cultivating a community of scholars. Unfortunately, today, too many have drifted from this mission and now operate more likepolitical entities than scholarly ones.

On the one hand, this is to be expected. In an academic world rife with ideologues, it would be surprising if scholarly associations had some- how remained immune. On the other hand, this politicization raises hard questions about these entities’ nature and purpose. It also poses a simpler query for policymakers: Why should the public subsidize these organizations? While the members of politicized associations clearly have a First Amendment right to assemble and share their views, they have no special claim on the public purse.

And these academic associations are hardly cheap. We estimate that the average membership costs $193 per year and the average conference registration is $471. Each year, according to our calculations. … these fees add up to about $359 million, of which $227 million comes from faculty at public colleges and universities. To the extent these funds support organizations engaged in political advocacy, it’s a betrayal of academic integrity and taxpayers, who should not be obligated to subsidize professors’ political activity. …

… At a minimum, associations should foster free inquiry and provide a forum for independent scholarly thought. Too many associations no longer do so. By repeatedly taking positions on divisive political issues, they delimit the bounds of permissible thought and permit advocacy to erode their commitment to academic inquiry.

This politicization is corrosive to academic research, which requires that scholars be free to challenge strongly held assumptions and benefits from an academic community that makes room for discordant views and alternative analyses. Issuing collective edicts is at cross-purposes with this ethos, especially when proclamations intimate that heterodox scholarship is outside the bounds of permissible thought. …