A long, wide-ranging conversation. At the end, Haidt predicts that there will be a split in the academic world. There will be a “University of Chicago model,” which underlines a commitment to truth and spurns indoctrination, and a “Brown University model” that does the opposite. He predicts that the market will reward Chicago and punish Brown.

I am not nearly so optimistic that the Chicago model will win out decisively.

1. I think that many high school students will prefer the Brown model.

2. I think that parents, who are the real consumers here, do not feel strongly about which model is used. What they care about is the school’s prestige and their ability to tell their friends that their child got into a top school. I do not think that Brown’s brand will decline much, if at all, in that regard.

I guess what I am saying is that I do not think that high school students or parents care all that much about the issue of truth-seeking vs. social-justice-seeking institutions of higher education. But suppose that they do care. Then some possible outcomes:

a. Brown attracts students oriented its way, and Chicago attracts students oriented its way. Over time, Chicago becomes predominantly conservative, and Brown becomes even more leftist.

b. Earlier in the dialogue, Peterson tosses out the data point that illiberal leftist students score relatively low on verbal intelligence. So perhaps the quality of the student body rises at Chicago and falls at Brown.