An easy solution — go charter

Master your own fate. Face the ugly truth — as long as you take public dollars, you will be under public control and public scruntiny. Once you go charter, no more intrusive public hearings and meddling politicians. Show some courage — go charter. If you are as brilliant and charismatic as you claim, going charter will be easy. The young and idealistic will follow you.

Mr. Ward Churchill’s next boss, Mgr at McDonald’s, at 11:29 am EDT on April 13, 2005

Reactionary Relativism

What is academic freedom? I always thought it was the freedom to discuss various epistemological approaches to diverse ideas. I understood the discussion to be one based on critical thinking where logic and evidence were used in the pursuit of knowledge. Instead the neocons have usurped a perspective usually expressed by liberals: radical relativism. This extension of postmodernism basically espouses the idea that one person’s opinion is just as good as another’s is. This approach is mistakenly considered being open-minded. But opinions about ideas that are supported by logic and evidence are not equivalent to those without such support, especially where evidence exists for one viewpoint and not the other. Thus, legally forcing the introduction of “alternative” opinions that are not backed with logic or evidence is not guaranteeing academic freedom but, rather, obfuscating it. Arguing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the earth is flat would not expand academic freedom in college or universities. Neither would be forcing the introduction of other unsupported beliefs such as creationism or intelligent design.

Hank Cetola, Professor Emeritus at Adrian College, at 8:42 pm EDT on April 13, 2005

Undermining free speech

Universities are bureaucracies that engage in systematic surveillance, prior restraint, suppression and censorship of their own staff (particularly non-academic staff) and especially those writers and editors hired to communicate on their behalf. University writers and editors must not write and edit freely, on pain of firing. How many incidents of censorship and suppression of university publications have been recorded over the years?

The university is the censor, prohibiting free inquiry and expression concerning its own decision-making processes and operations. The university bureaucracy — including the faculty — will accept nothing but propaganda and happy talk. Writers and editors who work for universities are not free.

When faculty members begin to demand and exercise free inquiry and expression (instead of suppressing them systematically), we may then take them seriously when they claim these rights for themselves. Until then, their claims are just a form of special pleading. Faculty members (and all university bureaucrats) are no more congenial to free inquiry and expression than bosses anywhere. Universities resemble nothing so much as tiny authoritarian states. Those outside the universities are quite right to scoff at university — and faculty — hypocrisy.

George, at 5:19 pm EDT on April 15, 2005

Reply to Ms. Dogan

Since the values Ms. Dogan says she espouses are already embodied in the operative assumptions of the state’s institutions of higher education, what would be the point of lifting that responsibility away from the state’s governing authority in higher education — other than to encourage litigation — when there are already procedures in place to handle any grievances? Ms. Dogan does not acknowledge that the author of the Florida legislation specifically cited his bill as authorizing students to bring suits against professors who do not introduce “intelligent design” as a coherent alternative to evolution as a way of explaining the origin and development of plant and animal life. Ms. Dogan does not acknowledge that Mr. Horowitz testified on behalf of that legislation. Why pretend otherwise?

Ralph E. Luker, at 6:09 am EDT on April 16, 2005

While “free speech” may be an ideal, one is always not guaranteed a right to speak their mind in all forums without consequences. In general, the 1st amendment only applies to the federal and state (via the 14th amendment) governments, so, at best it only directly applies to state universities. (Accrediting bodies generally require some degree of academic freedom, but I will put that aside for now.)

Second, while there is a growing legal field of what constitutes bona fide academic discourse that is, to some extent, protected by the first amendment, before one goes down that road, one needs to ask themselves, “What am I being paid to do?” Sometimes people seem to take jobs that conflict with their basic ideas. So, if you really believe that the earth was created in five days, and disparage anyone who follows a theory of evolution, then perhaps you probably should consider not teaching biology. You can still think your thoughts about the way the world was created, and you are, of course, free to try and convince people of these things. However, academic fields are organized according to their basis assumptions, and if you don’t subscribe to one assumption you can go to another one. There is room for everyone (except of you are in the bottom 90% of the class, but these days, everyone I meet claims to be in the top 10%).

Third, I am getting the sense that what many people consider “censorship” is just a fear that they will lose the friends that they have spent the past few years cultivating. Since most professors spend their time forming alliances and breaking them, as do people involved in “politics” on the national scale, I don’t see why people are really that surprised that the might end up the loser in a political battle.

I have litigated a few campus “free speech” issues, and I feel passionately about the subject. However, in my experience, peoples’ claims can be divided into three categories:1) People who wish to frame a political dispute with other members of the faculty in terms of their constitutional rights. There may be a bona fide issue, but it requires more research into the nature of the relationship between the professor (or student) and their employer and what actually happened when. 2) Administrators (and sometimes faculty) who don’t really understand the law (or even their own institutions procedures) and violate peoples’ rights without understanding what they are doing. These problems are usually quickly remedied when cooler heads prevail. 3) Nuts who want to draw a paycheck while doing nothing that their job requires. Unfortunately, there are too many of these who turn up in the strangest of places.

Before you go about complaining about an issue, think of which category you are in, or want to be in.

Larry, at 3:23 pm EDT on April 19, 2005

What have you done for unpopular views today ?

George, it is worth nothing that “government bureaucrats” enjoy varying amounts of first amendment rights. The scope of these rights is somewhat nebulous, as government entities have an interest in speaking with a united front.

For example, although it can be argued that ethical rules that judges abide by restrain their expression (especially regrading pending cases), most members of the judiciary can say just about whatever they want with little real fear of retribution. (This holds true despite what some members of Congress are saying now. In fact, the rhetoric has probably generated more titters from judges then actual suppression.) So, judges and other judicial employees frequently publish both in journals and on blogs.

Two caveats: 1) it is the custom to make it clear that the “views expressed do not represent the views of the judiciary”; and 2) the first amendment does not guarantee judicial officers the right to make ruling that don’t comport with the law as found in the constitution, binding precedent and statutes, so a judge who wants to declare himself not to be bound by the Supreme Court should find another job.

The executive has taken somewhat of a harder line regarding blogs (but not, to my knowledge, not published papers). I am not going to go so far as to say this is for illegitimate purposes, as there is a legitimate concern that the views expressed in one blog might prevent, for example, a government lawyer from representing the government at trial. Indeed, government lawyers being human, are likely to run into all sorts of conflicts which might end up preventing them from representing the government. (E.g. owning stock in a company the government is suing; being a member of the Sierra Club, which often sues the government.) While maybe such a pronouncement is overbroad, I think that the executive has a legitimate concern. Again, employees of the executive are free to get other jobs.

I differ with George in thinking that the state of one’s First Amendment rights is “designed” to protect a culture of subordination. “It is what it is.” I don’t think that the framers (or the drafters of the 14th amendment) intended the First Amendment to suppress dissent within universities, but I might be wrong here as large universities were not unknown to a few of them. So, if anyone has evidence that Jefferson saw the constitution as a means to keep professors at UVA in line, please post.

Instead, the US and state constitutions provide a baseline for government behavior. By rights, governments should recognize more rights (and, in fact, they do.) Only in extreme cases of manifest ignorance do first amendment issues, based on unconstitutional rules in universities arise (as compared to the 4th amendment, where issues often turn on decisions taken by individual policemen in the heat of the moment).

Instead, all academics should be asking themselves “what have *I* done to help others express themselves.” But, how many of you have done that today? I am not referring just to“sexy” first amendment issues like the rights of women or letting a church group meet on campus. But, have you done your part to ensure that students can do “dirty” things like the view or produce pornography, or that janitors can demand to get paid more than your child, or that a graduate student can declare, without retribution, that your colleague (who you rely on as an ally in department wars) plagiarized on of his papers?

Larry, at 10:59 am EDT on April 20, 2005