An Interview with Professor Ioannis Evrigenis, Incoming Director of the Open Academy

Professor Ioannis Evrigenis.

Last Tuesday, the Claremont Independent sat down with Professor Ioannis Evrigenis, the incoming faculty director for Claremont McKenna’s Open Academy. The Open Academy has grown since its founding in 2018, but its three core commitments remain the same: freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity and constructive dialogue. Evrigenis’ appointment, which will take effect July 1, comes at a time in which higher education has fallen under intense political scrutiny and colleges across the country have been forced to reckon with their commitments to free speech and academic freedom. The Independent’s conversation with Professor Evrigenis is below, lightly edited for length and clarity.

____

CI: Thank you for sitting down with me today. You joined CMC in 2023 as the Alice Tweed Tuohy Professor of Government and Ethics and are a faculty fellow with the Open Academy. Next year, you’ll step into a new role as the Open Academy faculty director. What motivated you to seek out this elevated leadership position?

Professor Evrigenis: I've been an interested participant in the Open Academy proceedings thus far, noting that I'm a relatively new arrival, and still learning my way around. It was an eye-opening experience to see the Open Academy in action last year, especially as most campuses were imploding, having relatively controversial topics being discussed in a manner that's structured and generally constructive. 

I've always been interested in this, both because of my research interests, which include things like free speech and rights, and also because I've been involved in a number of civic education projects over the years, including holding workshops for teachers, faculty in community colleges, and young scholars who are hoping to embark on academic careers. 

And as you know, the question of debating various things in the classroom in a manner that is civil and constructive has itself been the subject of controversy recently. It's always a topic of controversy, but it's been a special controversy in the past few years. It's something that I’ve faced in the classroom, and that every student and faculty member faces in the classroom. More importantly, though, we face it in the public sphere, and in our individual lives. Therefore, it's something that we need to figure out. I like the fact that Claremont McKenna is approaching it in a conscious and thoughtful manner, and not merely treating it as a box that you have to check because everybody else is interested in it. You know, pretending to be doing something but not really. 

CI: Do you see these trends in higher education, the movement away from free speech and open discourse, as partly to blame for the loss of faith and trust in America’s educational institutions? 

Professor Evrigenis: It's an interesting chicken and egg problem. I think that there are larger social trends that are contributing to these phenomena on campus. The university in some ways reflects the broader society of which it is a part of. But it also runs in the opposite direction because the university often sets the agenda for cultural issues and the way we think about them. 

There's plenty of responsibility to go around. It's in some sense a natural consequence of our valuing liberty, but we need to be thinking about the value of liberty in an ordered sense, where it's most usable and meaningful. And so it's always going to be a negotiation between the university and the larger society about how to do that, and the one can help the other arrive at a better place in the process. So I wouldn't put the blame on one side or the other. I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

CI: Critics of initiatives like the Open Academy would say that at a liberal arts college like Claremont McKenna, the Open Academy's core principles of freedom of expression, constructive dialogue and viewpoint diversity should be intrinsic to the mission of the school. In other words, you shouldn't even need an initiative like the Open Academy, because those values should simply be self-evident. Do you think that that critique holds water? Is the existence of the Open Academy reflective of a larger failing of the college?

Professor Evrigenis: I don't agree with that critique because it seems equivalent to saying that, things that are rational and self-evident, we should just skip over. And so, you know, we might as well not talk about rights because rights should be self-evident. We might as well not talk about reason because reason should be self-evident. And so while I understand that, we also need to bear in mind that these things are often self-evident from the perspective of somebody who's had the chance to learn about them and to think about them reflectively and seriously and with the benefit of some opposition, some counter arguments to think about them in a broader context than simply how each individual perceives them. 

I don't agree with the critique for the same reason that I understand the need for basic mathematics courses and basic courses in logic and language and all kinds of things. So one thing that we do in naming an initiative or focusing our efforts in a certain way, is highlighting it, right? And so somebody could tell you that you're thereby identifying a gap, but the other thing that you're doing is you're showing that this is what you value, and I think it's never the case that you could value free speech and open and thoughtful discussion too much. It would be a victimless crime if you were to value them too much. I think that they need to be supported and defended. 

One big enemy to freedom of thought and speech is complacency. If the complacency arises out of perfectly good desirable conditions, it's complacency nonetheless, right? It matters less whether or not there was a time when things were good enough that we didn't need to talk about this, and whether or not we now have an objective reason to talk about free speech. What matters more is making sure that when it doesn't need to be defended, it's nonetheless there and supported and valued. But when it needs to be defended, that it be defended robustly.

CI: That's something that in a way, you can see here at the Claremont Colleges. Claremont McKenna has the most explicit verbal commitment to freedom of expression and its surrounding principles, and seems to be making some effort to put those values into action. 

Professor Evrigenis: Right. With the caveat that I'm still learning my way around, what I've seen in that regard is impressive, as I said before, because it shows that people are thinking about this seriously and not superficially. They're trying to think about how you can shape an environment so that it's conducive to a good discussion and mutual respect. How do you take away the kinds of things that could contribute to unnecessary tension that becomes a distraction to a serious discussion? And obviously, you'll never succeed in fully eliminating all of those things, right? We’re human beings, we’re passionate, we're self-interested, all of those things are always going to be part of the equation. But the question is, how do you create the institutions and the incentives that allow for as many of those things as possible to stay at the door and for the discussion to be as productive as possible.

CI: Within that picture, what do you see the scope of the Open Academy to be? Is it a sufficient remedy to the ills of higher education, or do you think there are broader institutional changes that need to be made to address them? 

Professor Evrigenis: I don't think it's sufficient, and I don't think it could ever be sufficient. The core work that we do here is in the classrooms and in the proverbial library– wherever anybody studies, thinks and considers the issues that we talk about in class. But I think that it is a necessary supplement in the sense that it can shape the way in which we approach class and academic issues, and the way in which we interact with our peers outside of the classroom, the cafeteria, the dorms, and at various meetings. And then, how we can transport those lessons and good habits to our homes and our particular environments beyond campus. Therefore, I think it can play an important role. It could never suffice on its own, just like the best class cannot suffice on its own, but it's an important supplement to the overall experience that we hope students and faculty provide for one another. 

CI: As you assume the faculty director role, where do you hope to take the Open Academy, and do you have any specific goals? 

Professor Evrigenis: My first goal is to understand where we're at. By that, I mean educate myself with regard to the environment, the landscape and the people, to know who we are much better than I do now. I also want to get a sense of what the various constituencies of the college are and think more broadly about their problems, how successful the solutions have been, and where we might want to go. I want to have a solid understanding of what people see as areas for improvement and what they think works well, so that’s an initial goal. There's a very broad range of initiatives that one could undertake. I would rather do a few things well than take on too much.

The second thing would be to think more broadly about not just what takes place on campus, but with regard to the campus in its relationship to broader society. So, in what ways could we learn from and educate our community? To think about our relationship to K-12 education, to the professional life, to the fact that as a liberal arts institution, we seek not just to provide people with preparation for a career, but also for a life of the mind that will far surpass the limits of a career and extend into the family, personal relationships and how one thinks about their place in the world. I want to identify some places where we're already doing things that are consistent with the principles of the Open Academy, but maybe are not recognized as such, or not  consciously thought of as such, and to think about ways of connecting those different pieces. It's very clear to me that people are really engaged in what they're doing, both curricular and extracurricular. The seriousness of this engagement and the commitment that everybody has to what they're doing, I think holds a lot of promise for the core principles of the Open Academy.

CI: Where do you see the Open Academy in five or ten years? Do you think its mission and methodology will still be relevant by then? 

Professor Evrigenis: I think so. I think the principles speak for themselves. I don't think that if you offered the principles of the Open Academy to some Claremont McKenna student in the 70s, they would have told you that they were inconsistent with the mission of the school at that time. As you said before, we have a certain idea of the university and what it's supposed to be doing, and it seems that the core of that idea, whatever it is, is consistent with those principles, no matter what one specific conception of the university might be. Those transcend the particular social and political difficulties that we have with conversation right now, but people have always had trouble with conversation. I think we can also be a little too pessimistic in our current predicament, in thinking that we are far worse off than anybody's ever been. People have always struggled with the ability to create the conditions for good, meaningful and productive dialogue. And very often, they found good ways to deal with it, but I think that keeping it at the forefront of our thinking, and trying to introduce it or enhance it in as many of our activities as possible is ultimately going to serve us well. So I don't think it's the kind of thing that goes away, no matter what you call it.

CI: Thank you very much for your time!

Editor’s Note: Kendall White is a 2024–2025 Open Academy fellow.