Is the Pennsylvania House serious about the academic freedom hearings it is conducting? Or is it intent on denying there is a problem by playing games with process? Julia Seymour, who has been following the hearings, asks more specifically: “So how is it that an investigative committee is doing such a poor job of getting out information on the hearings, of scheduling the hearings when students cannot attend, and lining up witnesses the majority of whom say there is no problem–out of self-preservation or delusion? Is it ineptitude or are these hearings an intentional put-up job? Or is it simply that each member of the committee already has their mind made up…?” Seymour’s observations about these proceedings resemble my description of the recent Kabuki-theater style “review” of intellectual diversity by a State University of New York board committee: one-sided, trumped up, full court, and pre-determined not to find abuses of academic freedom. Investigations by lawmakers and governing boards of the state of academic freedom on public campuses need to be closely watched. It may be necessary to investigate the investigators for fairness and open-mindedness.