Academic Freedom [EvolutionBlog]


Let’s consider a hypothetical situation.


Professor Jones, who has tenure, learns that a graduate student in a different department has conducted a class in a manner he finds objectionable. So Jones writes a blog post in which he attacks the graduate student by name. He uses incendiary rhetoric he could reasonably know would lead to threats, harassment and intimidation directed at the student. In describing what transpired, he makes several errors of fact that are defamatory toward the people being discussed. It is later revealed that he has done this before. That is, he has attacked students by name in incendiary ways, and has been specifically asked to stop doing that.


Is this conduct sufficiently egregious for the university to consider breaking tenure? If the university decides the answer is yes, would this constitute an attack on Jones’s academic freedom?


I’m a bit ambivalent on the first question. Jones is plainly an unprofessional asshole, but breaking tenure over an obnoxious blog post is probably an overreaction. But I’m quite certain that the answer to the second question is no. Academic freedom is not a blanket license to be an unprofessional asshole.


As you might have guessed, this situation is not entirely hypothetical. It’s essentially playing out at Marquette University right now. From Slate :



In November, [John] McAdams, an associate professor of political science, wrote a blog post accusing a teaching assistant in philosophy of shutting down a classroom conversation on gay marriage based on her own political beliefs. His account was based on a recording secretly made by a disgruntled student who wished that the instructor, Cheryl Abbate, had spent more time in class one day on the topic of gay marriage, which the student opposed. McAdams said Abbate, in not allowing a prolonged conversation about gay marriage, was “using a tactic typical among liberals,” in which opinions they disagree with “are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed `offensive’ and need to be shut up.”


Abbate said McAdams had distorted her actions—and that she wasn’t trying to shut down an argument she disagreed with but simply had wanted to keep a focus on an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’ equal liberty principle. But conservative blogs spread McAdams’ take on the situation—and she found herself receiving a flood of hateful email messages, some of them threatening.



For additional context and links, see the accounts in Inside Higher Education , and The Atlantic .


From what I have been able to glean from the accounts I have read, Abbate did nothing wrong in the class itself. The discussion in class had nothing to do with gay marriage per se. The question was rather how John Rawls’ principles would apply to gay marriage. She was keeping the conversation on track, not shutting down viewpoints she disliked.


Where she went overboard was in her later conversation with the student. This conversation was surreptitiously recorded:



Student: Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.


Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?


Student: No, I don’t.


Abbate: And don’t you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?


Student: If I choose to challenge this, it’s my right as an American citizen.


Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don’t have a right in this class, as … especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments …


Student: Homophobic comments? They’re not. I’m not saying that gays, that one guy can’t like another girl or something like that. Or, one guy can’t like another guy.



The full transcript can be found at the Atlantic link above.


Some of that is fine. I have no problem with saying that racist and homophobic comments are simply unacceptable in a class of this sort, and I have no trouble with pointing out to this pompous and self-important student that, actually, he does not have some abstract right to free speech in her class.


But I have a big problem with Abbate suggesting that merely expressing opposition to gay marriage constitutes homophobia. I have nothing nice to say about the anti-gay-marriage view, but it is not inherently bigoted or homophobic. A student who expresses that view in a class discussion should not be intimidated or made to feel unwelcome. Abbate is being rather unfair to homosexuals in her implication that they will immediately get the vapors when someone expresses his opinion that gay marriage should not be allowed. More to the point, though, who cares if they are offended? A professor can require a civil discussion, but she cannot reasonably give a heckler’s veto to students who would restrict what opinions can be expressed.


So Abbate could have handled the situation better. If a senior member of her department had sat her down to remind her of the importance of respecting different viewpoints, especially ones that might go against the norm, I would have no problem with it. But she was nowhere close to deserving a vicious and inaccurate personal attack, in which she was held up to the world as the symbol of liberal tyranny. As I see it, that’s essentially what McAdams did.


Writing at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf defends McAdams:



Professor John McAdams is being stripped of tenure by Marquette University for writing a blog post that administrators characterize as inaccurate and irresponsible.


Academics all over the United States ought to denounce the firing of the 69-year-old, a Harvard Ph.D. who taught courses on American politics and public policy. If tenure can be taken away based upon one controversial blog post, what protection does it offer? How many tenured professors will censor themselves from participating in public conversation to avoid a similar fate? Marquette has violated core academic values, regardless of what one thinks of McAdams’ commentary or the shabby treatment of the graduate instructor he was criticizing (who deserves sympathy for the horrifying torrent of misogyny others directed at her).



I have some sympathy for Friedersdorf’s worry over the precedent this sets. But the fact remains that I don’t see any core academic values being threatened here. McAdams is not in trouble for expressing a controversial opinion, or for conducting research that is outside the mainstream. If he had written a strongly-worded post decrying gay marriage, no one would be coming after him for it. Likewise if he had written a post decrying liberal arrogance and whatnot. For that matter, if he had attacked Abbate personally for views she expressed in a public lecture or in a published paper, that would have been just fine. To answer Friedersdorf’s question, that’s what tenure protects you from.


But tenure is not protection from the consequences of your own professional misconduct.


As you might imagine, this all has some personal resonance for me. The anti-religious opinions I express at this blog could easily get me in trouble with certain conservative politicians. The losing candidate in the most recent Virginia governor’s race was a religious extremist with a lot of antipathy towards higher education. During the race I worried seriously about whether I could continue this blog if he won. However, I do feel confident that I have never come close to the line McAdams at least arguably crossed. Expressing opinions, and criticizing people who have made themselves at least limited public figures through their writing, is a far cry from what I summarized in my opening hypothetical.


Two other points to consider. The first is that this case is a useful reminder that, contrary to what ignorant people often say, tenure is not by any stretch a guaranteed job. Tenure only entitles you to certain due process rights if the university tries to get rid of you. It’s a higher level of job protection than most people have, but it is nowhere close to allowing you to do just whatever you want.


The second point is to keep in mind that Marquette University is a Catholic (specifically Jesuit) school. I deplore the idea of limiting class discussions or declaring “safe spaces” or many of the other species of left-wing nonsense that sometimes afflict college campuses. But I do have to smile just a little at the thought that it is becoming socially unacceptable to express opposition to gay marriage even at Catholic universities.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1wbGFcU

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation.


Professor Jones, who has tenure, learns that a graduate student in a different department has conducted a class in a manner he finds objectionable. So Jones writes a blog post in which he attacks the graduate student by name. He uses incendiary rhetoric he could reasonably know would lead to threats, harassment and intimidation directed at the student. In describing what transpired, he makes several errors of fact that are defamatory toward the people being discussed. It is later revealed that he has done this before. That is, he has attacked students by name in incendiary ways, and has been specifically asked to stop doing that.


Is this conduct sufficiently egregious for the university to consider breaking tenure? If the university decides the answer is yes, would this constitute an attack on Jones’s academic freedom?


I’m a bit ambivalent on the first question. Jones is plainly an unprofessional asshole, but breaking tenure over an obnoxious blog post is probably an overreaction. But I’m quite certain that the answer to the second question is no. Academic freedom is not a blanket license to be an unprofessional asshole.


As you might have guessed, this situation is not entirely hypothetical. It’s essentially playing out at Marquette University right now. From Slate :



In November, [John] McAdams, an associate professor of political science, wrote a blog post accusing a teaching assistant in philosophy of shutting down a classroom conversation on gay marriage based on her own political beliefs. His account was based on a recording secretly made by a disgruntled student who wished that the instructor, Cheryl Abbate, had spent more time in class one day on the topic of gay marriage, which the student opposed. McAdams said Abbate, in not allowing a prolonged conversation about gay marriage, was “using a tactic typical among liberals,” in which opinions they disagree with “are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed `offensive’ and need to be shut up.”


Abbate said McAdams had distorted her actions—and that she wasn’t trying to shut down an argument she disagreed with but simply had wanted to keep a focus on an in-class conversation about the philosopher John Rawls’ equal liberty principle. But conservative blogs spread McAdams’ take on the situation—and she found herself receiving a flood of hateful email messages, some of them threatening.



For additional context and links, see the accounts in Inside Higher Education , and The Atlantic .


From what I have been able to glean from the accounts I have read, Abbate did nothing wrong in the class itself. The discussion in class had nothing to do with gay marriage per se. The question was rather how John Rawls’ principles would apply to gay marriage. She was keeping the conversation on track, not shutting down viewpoints she disliked.


Where she went overboard was in her later conversation with the student. This conversation was surreptitiously recorded:



Student: Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.


Abbate: Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?


Student: No, I don’t.


Abbate: And don’t you think that that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?


Student: If I choose to challenge this, it’s my right as an American citizen.


Abbate: Ok, well, actually you don’t have a right in this class, as … especially as an ethics professor, to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments …


Student: Homophobic comments? They’re not. I’m not saying that gays, that one guy can’t like another girl or something like that. Or, one guy can’t like another guy.



The full transcript can be found at the Atlantic link above.


Some of that is fine. I have no problem with saying that racist and homophobic comments are simply unacceptable in a class of this sort, and I have no trouble with pointing out to this pompous and self-important student that, actually, he does not have some abstract right to free speech in her class.


But I have a big problem with Abbate suggesting that merely expressing opposition to gay marriage constitutes homophobia. I have nothing nice to say about the anti-gay-marriage view, but it is not inherently bigoted or homophobic. A student who expresses that view in a class discussion should not be intimidated or made to feel unwelcome. Abbate is being rather unfair to homosexuals in her implication that they will immediately get the vapors when someone expresses his opinion that gay marriage should not be allowed. More to the point, though, who cares if they are offended? A professor can require a civil discussion, but she cannot reasonably give a heckler’s veto to students who would restrict what opinions can be expressed.


So Abbate could have handled the situation better. If a senior member of her department had sat her down to remind her of the importance of respecting different viewpoints, especially ones that might go against the norm, I would have no problem with it. But she was nowhere close to deserving a vicious and inaccurate personal attack, in which she was held up to the world as the symbol of liberal tyranny. As I see it, that’s essentially what McAdams did.


Writing at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf defends McAdams:



Professor John McAdams is being stripped of tenure by Marquette University for writing a blog post that administrators characterize as inaccurate and irresponsible.


Academics all over the United States ought to denounce the firing of the 69-year-old, a Harvard Ph.D. who taught courses on American politics and public policy. If tenure can be taken away based upon one controversial blog post, what protection does it offer? How many tenured professors will censor themselves from participating in public conversation to avoid a similar fate? Marquette has violated core academic values, regardless of what one thinks of McAdams’ commentary or the shabby treatment of the graduate instructor he was criticizing (who deserves sympathy for the horrifying torrent of misogyny others directed at her).



I have some sympathy for Friedersdorf’s worry over the precedent this sets. But the fact remains that I don’t see any core academic values being threatened here. McAdams is not in trouble for expressing a controversial opinion, or for conducting research that is outside the mainstream. If he had written a strongly-worded post decrying gay marriage, no one would be coming after him for it. Likewise if he had written a post decrying liberal arrogance and whatnot. For that matter, if he had attacked Abbate personally for views she expressed in a public lecture or in a published paper, that would have been just fine. To answer Friedersdorf’s question, that’s what tenure protects you from.


But tenure is not protection from the consequences of your own professional misconduct.


As you might imagine, this all has some personal resonance for me. The anti-religious opinions I express at this blog could easily get me in trouble with certain conservative politicians. The losing candidate in the most recent Virginia governor’s race was a religious extremist with a lot of antipathy towards higher education. During the race I worried seriously about whether I could continue this blog if he won. However, I do feel confident that I have never come close to the line McAdams at least arguably crossed. Expressing opinions, and criticizing people who have made themselves at least limited public figures through their writing, is a far cry from what I summarized in my opening hypothetical.


Two other points to consider. The first is that this case is a useful reminder that, contrary to what ignorant people often say, tenure is not by any stretch a guaranteed job. Tenure only entitles you to certain due process rights if the university tries to get rid of you. It’s a higher level of job protection than most people have, but it is nowhere close to allowing you to do just whatever you want.


The second point is to keep in mind that Marquette University is a Catholic (specifically Jesuit) school. I deplore the idea of limiting class discussions or declaring “safe spaces” or many of the other species of left-wing nonsense that sometimes afflict college campuses. But I do have to smile just a little at the thought that it is becoming socially unacceptable to express opposition to gay marriage even at Catholic universities.






from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1wbGFcU

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire