The College Fix's Framing and Motivations
- Jun 27
- 4 min read
Updated: Jun 29
Cassandra Williamson
27 Jun 2025, Friday
The articles by Matt Lamb and Micaiah Bilger are consistent with The College Fix's broader editorial mission. This publication, which is a project of the Student Free Press Association and has connections to the conservative Hillsdale College, focuses on what it perceives as left-wing bias and "woke" ideology in higher education.1
The "Neutrality" Argument:
Lamb's article argues that universities are hypocritical to claim institutional neutrality while supporting LGBTQ+ Pride. This argument hinges on the premise that LGBTQ+ rights are a political and partisan issue. By framing it this way, any support for the LGBTQ+ community can be painted as a political endorsement, thus violating neutrality. This is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to delegitimize support for LGBTQ+ individuals.
The "Silencing Dissent" Narrative:
Bilger's article, "MIT scholar blames 'liberal' tribalism for silencing dissent on 'trans' child mastectomies," reinforces another key theme of The College Fix: that a "liberal" or "woke" orthodoxy is stifling free inquiry and punishing those who question it.2 This narrative is often used to defend those who are critical of transgender rights and gender-affirming care. The article highlights the story of a scholar who feels silenced, portraying them as a brave truth-teller in the face of ideological pressure.
Why the "Ire Toward the LGBT Community?"
The focus on LGBTQ+ issues by The College Fix and similar outlets is not random. It is a strategic component of a larger political and cultural project. The LGBTQ+ community, and particularly the transgender community, has become a central focus in the culture wars for several reasons:
Social Conservatism:
The College Fix's perspective is rooted in a socially conservative worldview that often views non-traditional family structures and gender identities as a threat to established social norms and values.
"Wedge" Issue:
LGBTQ+ rights are often used as a "wedge issue" to divide and energize a political base.3 By portraying the LGBTQ+ community as a radical and aggressive force, these outlets can create a sense of threat and urgency among their readers.
Proxy for "Wokeism":
The term "woke" is often used as a catch-all for a range of progressive ideas.4 By attacking what they label as "woke" policies related to gender and sexuality, they can attack the broader progressive movement without engaging with the substance of its arguments.
Pushing Back Against the Framing
It is possible to effectively counter this narrative. Here are some strategies, including the concept of adversarial collaboration:
Reframe the Debate:
From Politics to People:
Consistently reframe the issue away from politics and back to people. Emphasize that support for LGBTQ+ individuals is not about taking a political side, but about affirming the dignity, humanity, and rights of all members of the community.
Highlight the Harm:
Talk about the real-world harm that is caused by anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and policies. Share stories of how this impacts the mental and physical health of LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly young people.
Focus on Shared Values:
Appeal to shared values like fairness, equality, and the importance of creating a safe and welcoming environment for everyone.
Expose the Strategy:
Name the Tactic:
When you see the "institutional neutrality" argument being used, name it as a rhetorical tactic designed to silence support for the LGBTQ+ community.
Question the Premise:
Challenge the premise that LGBTQ+ rights are a partisan issue. Ask why a publication is so invested in framing it that way.
Use Adversarial Collaboration:
Adversarial collaboration is a process in which people with opposing views agree to work together to find the truth.5 It was popularized by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman as a way to overcome biases and reach a more nuanced understanding of complex issues.6 While it can be challenging, it can also be a powerful tool for productive dialogue.
Here's how it could be applied:
Find a Willing Partner:
Identify an individual or group on the other side who is willing to engage in a good-faith discussion. This may not be the editors of The College Fix, but it could be a student group, a professor, or a community leader who is influenced by their arguments.
Establish Ground Rules:
Agree on a set of ground rules for the discussion. This could include a commitment to using respectful language, a willingness to listen to the other side's perspective, and a focus on evidence and reason.
Identify Points of Agreement and Disagreement:
Start by identifying any areas of common ground. Then, clearly articulate the points of disagreement.
Co-create a Project:
The goal of adversarial collaboration is to work together on a project that will help to resolve the disagreement.7 This could be a joint statement, a public forum, or a research project.
For example, a student LGBTQ+ group and a conservative student group on a campus could agree to co-host a series of discussions on the meaning of "institutional neutrality." They could invite speakers from different perspectives and work together to create a summary of the different viewpoints.
By using these strategies, you can push back against the framing used by The College Fix and other similar outlets. It is important to remember that this is a long-term project that requires patience, persistence, and a commitment to respectful dialogue.
The Path Forward
Join me each weekday at 6 PM Eastern or 3 PM Pacific as I explore and analyze the days news and opinions.
Midday with Cassandra Williamson
On weekdays, usually at 1 PM Eastern.
[The timing is flexible since, as the caregiver for my mom, brother, and sister, my schedule is influenced by their appointments, needs, and situation.]
Programming is available on Social Media.
Comments