Despite what headlines often suggest, when it comes to tackling controversial issues on college campuses, the biggest challenge isn’t constraints on academic freedom. It’s not restrictions placed on free speech, high levels of self-censorship, or even a lack of civil discourse.
To be clear, each of these is a genuine problem, but they share a root cause that we tend to ignore. Failing to understand this point will continue to stand in the way of any path to rebuilding trust in higher education.
The Certainty Trap is the result of a narrow, sloppy way of thinking that’s gone unchecked in higher education for years.The shared root cause I’m referring to is something I call the Certainty Trap. And the easiest way to recognize it is by how we feel when we’re in it. We know we’re in this trap when we demonize, dismiss, or otherwise view with contempt people who disagree—especially on heated issues.
The trap is the result of a narrow, sloppy way of thinking that’s gone unchecked in higher education for years. It’s ultimately a failure to question, challenge, or clarify our thinking in a way that has blurred the line between interpretations and truth. And it forms the throughline between each of the problems described above.
Avoiding the trap means understanding that, when we judge as hateful or ignorant someone who sees the world differently, it’s because certainty has paved the way for us to do so.
To see how this can work, consider the claim that biology and gender are entirely distinct. Certainty on this point clears the path for the conclusion that saying “a trans-woman isn’t a woman” is transphobic. Similarly, certainty that inequality is caused by systemic racism, past and present, paves the way for the conclusion that questioning the role of systemic racism is itself racist. And certainty that, for instance, immigration is good for the economy makes possible the judgment that anyone who favors immigration restrictions is xenophobic.
To be sure, people holding any of the positions just mentioned may well be transphobic, racist, or xenophobic. For that matter, so might people who hold none of the opinions listed here. The problem is that certainty means other possible explanations are dismissed.
Notably, universities’ longstanding willingness to act and condemn based on the subjective use of these labels helps explain why, in the spring of 2024, Jewish students rightly expected their labeling of words and behaviors as anti-Semitic to elicit a similar response.
The Certainty Trap is made up of three fallacies.
The first is the Settled Question Fallacy. It refers to the way we treat our knowledge about the world as final, rather than provisional. It also describes our tendency to treat our preferred policy or decision as though it has no downsides, or at least none worth taking seriously.
The second is the Fallacy of Equal Knowledge. This is the assumption that, if we all had the same information, we’d agree on issues like abortion, Black Lives Matter, and immigration.
Finally, there’s the Fallacy of Known Intent. As the name implies, it means we’ve made an assumption about the other person’s motives. Avoiding each of these is required for avoiding the problem of certainty.
The Certainty Trap isn’t limited to any singular political party. For instance, certainty that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate clears the way for the judgment that anyone who thinks Biden won fairly is a mindless sheep. And, if higher education were dominated by the political right, we might be facing an entirely different set of claims.
The Certainty Trap isn’t limited to any singular political party.To give a sense of just how integrated this trap has become to higher education, consider the following example. Last academic year, I served on the Courses and Curriculum Committee for the College of Arts and Sciences at my own institution. This committee is charged with approving courses that will then be listed in the course catalog with a unique number. The last course proposal we considered at the end of the spring semester was titled “Racism in the United States.” The syllabus described how the instructor would cover topics including the impact of systemic and institutional racism, as well as unconscious bias.
When it was time for committee members to give feedback on the syllabus, I spoke up. I said, “The course seems fine. But I think it should have a different name.” I paused briefly before going on, “It should be called ‘A Progressive Understanding of Racism in the United States’.”
Bringing the course title in line with its content seemed like an obvious and necessary change. And yet, I was unanimously voted down. Certainty—the sense that, in this case, the politically progressive view on racism was the only reasonable or moral way to see it—cleared the path for my suggestion to be overridden.
When it comes to tackling contentious topics, universities have a serious problem—although it’s not the one they often think of. In part, this is because even the most well-intentioned instructors, the ones most committed to having open conversations, can be trapped in their thinking and not realize it.
To get a sense of how this can play out, we might consider the differences between the following deliberately simplified scenarios.
In the Certainty Trap:
Today we’re talking about admissions policies in higher education. People who oppose affirmative action don’t understand how systemic barriers have created persistent inequities in educational access. And the idea that economic status is a better factor to consider than race ignores the data showing that racial minorities face unique obstacles.
Certainty: Systemic racism causes inequality in access to higher education.
Judgment: Anyone who questions this claim is hateful or ignorant.
Out of the Certainty Trap:
Today we’re talking about admissions policies in higher education. People who favor affirmative action argue that systemic barriers have created persistent inequities in educational access. They argue that ignoring these disadvantages is ahistorical and unfair. People who oppose affirmative action argue that the idea of systemic causes isn’t testable, and it’s unfair to use someone’s race or gender as a job qualification.
Let’s consider one more example.
By shedding the deceptive comfort of certainty, we can begin to solve the surface-level problems in academia.In the Certainty Trap:
Today we’re going to talk about discussions of gender identity in schools. People who think we shouldn’t explain gender nonconformity to children fundamentally misunderstand both child development and inclusivity. Delaying access to these materials sends a harmful message that some identities are inappropriate to discuss.
Certainty: Gender is a spectrum and is entirely socially constructed.
Judgment: Anyone who questions this claim is hateful or ignorant.
Out of The Certainty Trap:
Today we’re going to talk about discussions of gender identity in schools. Liberals argue that discussions on gender identity are crucial for child development and inclusivity. Conservatives argue that the idea that gender is a spectrum, and that it can or should be decoupled from biology, is simply not supported and that telling children otherwise is harmful and confusing.
Ultimately, avoiding the Certainty Trap’s three fallacies requires a few intellectual commitments.
One is that there is no idea, value, or belief that’s exempt from being questioned or challenged. Two is that trying out an idea doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with it. For example, asking “Why is slavery bad?” is not necessarily an argument that it isn’t. Three is that exploring the benefits of an idea doesn’t mean you think those benefits outweigh the costs or that you necessarily want to sign up for it. For instance, saying “I wonder what some of the positives might be of living in a dictatorship?” doesn’t necessarily mean I want to move to North Korea.
With these norms in place, when it comes to controversial topics, students and their instructors can more easily think and talk through competing perspectives in a way that’s both broad and clear. The goal is to create an intellectual space where students can, for almost any opinion or position they find objectionable, come up with a version that makes sense to them—where “makes sense” means that the version they come up with avoids the Certainty Trap’s three fallacies, requiring it to steer clear of any assumption of bad intent or ignorance.
The upshot is this: By shedding the deceptive comfort of certainty and truly clarifying our assumptions, including thinking through how someone could make a totally different set, we can begin to solve the surface-level problems in academia. More importantly, we can make our institutions what they’re meant to be: centers of intellectual life where dialogue, risk-taking, and inquiry thrive.
Ilana Redstone is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is the author of The Certainty Trap as well as the co-author of two other books. More about her work is available at www.ilanaredstone.com.