It is hard to quarrel with what hans Gesund has said. We just need to add that colleges and universities still need to make decisions on matters like tenure or who is to speak on campus in accordance with established priciples, policies, and procedures related to academic freedom, tenure, etc.

Richard Hennessey, Director of the Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Program at Merrimack College, at 9:20 am EDT on October 23, 2007

Academics Demand Freedom from Criticism

How dare thoes peons we eduacated and granted degrees to have the audacity to read our books and comment on them!

Call out the guards, defend the Ivory Tower, the poeple have the unmitigated gall to think that they can think, they must be put in their place.

Reality check: In America we freely discuss the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees, the new Public Editor of the New York Times and proposed managers for the New York Yankees.

Do you really think that Americans do not have the right to discuss the qualifications of candidates for tenure at the universitits they graduated from?

Barnard alum, alumna at Barnard College, at 11:20 am EDT on October 23, 2007

The world isn’t like the university.

kgotthardt wrote, “We can’t ignore the politicians, even if they annoy the you-know-what out of us. And of course, they build their platforms on people like Horowitz who will advertise a particular platform for free.”

I agree, but academics refuse to accept any oversight from the paying public whatsoever —- even as those same academics unceasingly advocate government “regulation” OF the public.

kgotthardt wrote, “If the academic community feels they are being misrepresented, they need to defend their turf and be just as vocal as the nay-sayers.”

Ah. Here’s the problem: academics don’t think they NEED to justify their work to the paying public. For most academics, research is for researchers —- no, not even that —- it’s just for researchers in their own narrow field. Forget everyone else.

It’s even worse in areas where research has, ahem, a rather fluid definition. The mis-named social sciences come to mind.

kgotthardt wrote, “People want reason, proof and truth. GIVE IT TO THEM! There are more college students, university professors and parents who will stand up for what they have learned than there are David Horowitzes.”

I agree that people want justification. I agree that academics haven’t provided it. I disagree there are more “more college students, university professors and parents who will stand up for what they have learned.”

I think you have fallen for the old academic rhetorical trope: assume with no evidence that people who criticize academia are unlearned. I know it is shocking, shocking!, to academics, but most learning happens OUTSIDE of the university. Much of that outside learning refutes the ideologically-based “teachings” of professors.

It funny to see it. Professors shun all criticism from the paying public by saying “we have our own standards in this field; until you do research to our standards, shut up.” Yet, professors have no problem criticizing people engaged in practical matters, say businessmen. These same businessmen can say, “we have our own standards in business; until you run a company in my industry, shut up professor.”

Professors apply their standards of “freedom” rather narrowly. Like any interest group, they tend to apply them for their own benefit. Upon leaving the university, many, many people notice it.

IMHO, the problem is with the professors, who fail to apply a basic distinction. There is a very great difference between theoretical and practical knowledge. The world isn’t like the university. Stop pretending it is.

Let’s have that debate.

Jeff, at 11:35 am EDT on October 23, 2007

To Joseph C.

Joseph c. wrote, “You are not ‘consumers’ of education. The rules are different. Teachers, tenured or otherwise, are not comparable to office workers.”

So you say, but do not demonstrate. Is your claim serious? Do you really think education is exempt from economic decision-making? That students are not making economic decisions about their education?

Teachers make economic decisions just like every other office worker.

Joseph C. wrote, “There is no right, unwritten or otherwise, to not be offended. If a student in class is offended by a certain statement made by the teacher in class, dialog between student and instructor to help clear things up should be initiated.”

I agree with your first sentence, but most professors don’t agree with us. I remember being told by one of my graduate level philosophy professors (publicly in the middle of class), “I think a free-market guy like you will have a hard time passing my course.” That’s how most professors conduct a “dialog,” Joseph.

Joseph C. wrote, “It is not the job of a researcher or professor to serve the State or any other large institution, irrespective of who signs the checks.”

So you say, but it is easy to see why it is false. Ultimately, the people who sign your checks are paying you to achieve some purpose. You don’t get to determine that purpose because the paying public can remove that funding at any time for ITS own purposes. This is an economic fact.

Whether you like it or not, education is a CIVIC institution governed by the rules of civic discourse. This fact belies your claim that the “rules are different” for teachers.

Joseph C. wrote, “The student will not be coddled against views they currently do not hold.”

I agree, but neither should professors. Yes?

Jeff, at 12:30 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

Public research?

The other thing is, I’m not sure how the general public pays for research anyway. It might be very different for other people, but I personally have two separate jobs, with two separate revenue sources and two separate employers. When I instruct for the university, I’m paid by the university, partially through public funds. In this job, I am very much accountable to the public. If my students aren’t happy with the job I’ve done, they will reflect this in the evaluations, which might well lead to my contract not being renewed. If I was actually the sort to bully students, I’d be open to being fired immediately. I don’t know about other people, but I’m very much aware of the needs of the public in this particular role. I’d be willing to bet that my students have no idea of my own politics, nor should they.

As for my research, that’s paid for by a private foundation, to whom I am directly accountable. However, this is private funding, and as it’s considered a ‘gift’ is not taxable. Not only do I have to account for all of my expenses during research, but the final scholarship has to be up to snuff. However, the public does not pay for this research. Not at all.

So, I’m really not sure why the public to whom I am accountable when teaching should oversee the research that they absolutely do not pay for. Nor will they likely read it. To be honest, my research isn’t political either. However, I don’t get why so many critics blur together teaching, research, and even how academics vote. Who pays us to vote? I suspect they do this because it boosts the numbers of ’subversive academics’.

rufus, at 1:10 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

Some comments on the tenure process

Prof. Scott makes the following point (quoting from your article):

**Many colleges — and this was the case at DePaul with Finkelstein — start tenure reviews at the departmental level, and then the review passes to a university-wide committee. Scott said she saw this as appropriate if the second committee was “looking at process, not at substance.” It’s important for a second body, she said, to be sure that procedures were followed, but not to judge the scholarship.**

Prof. Scott’s opinion is contrary to common practice. Most universities have several layers of review that look at substance, including hers. For example, at my university, Rutgers, first a departmental committee reviews the record and makes a recommendation. Then, a college-wide committee reviews the same record independently and makes its own recommendation. The tenure/promotion package then goes to the dean of the college, who also makes an evaluation. The package then goes to a university wide committee that has the final say. All these evaluating bodies are free to make their own evaluations and look at substance, while respecting the decisions made by the previous groups.

Princeton, where Prof. Scott teaches, has a similar system. A Princeton faculty member whom I know well was recommended for promotion by his department. The university did not promote him.

It is a matter of checks and balances and of looking at tenure/promotion packages from different perspectives.

Unfortunately, and it seems to be the case with the decisions mentioned in the article, the professors involved in the controversial tenure decisions took their opinions to the public first. Also, there is ample evidence that the professors involved were putting their political biases against peer review. In the classroom, they were stating their ideology as self-evident truths. Such behavior leads to complaints by students, it makes the public aware of the professor’s behavior and politics, and it invites outside forces to comment on the faculty member’s promotion process.

You reap what you sow.

Haim Baruh, Professor at Rutgers, at 2:45 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

All this is very interesting.

First, Amy, we know some students and professors support Horowitz. That has become obvious. What has NOT been obvious are those who think otherwise but have yet to speak out in a manner that reaches the general public and not just the academic community. When academics get in that comfy place that reassures them, “I belong in the University and no other place,” what we get is Horowitz et al running rampant with little balance from others. Horowitz has the media because he sensationalizes. Academics are seen as stodgy and boring. Who would want to listen to “us” and not Horowitz? I am telling academics to step up to the plate, get out from under the piles of academic journals, and start something meaningful that will explain to people what it is we actually do here. And we need to do that in terms everyone can understand. Please...no academic jargon! Even other academics can’t always understand that kind of language.

Second, Joseph, we absolutely ARE “consumers of education” in the same way we might be consumers of services. For example, a business consultant can go in, evaluate, make recommendations. But he/she cannot implement or enforce those recommendations to the business owner (not successfully anyway). It’s the same thing in the classroom and the institution: I can give you all I have, but I can’t make you do anything with it if you don’t want to. But if I don’t give you what I promised, then there is breach of contract there somewhere. We need to work this out as best we can within the institution, but too many times, that doesn’t happen.

Third, Jeff, I don’t know why you say the social sciences are “mis-named.” Since you don’t bother to explain, I won’t bother with your sarcasm, either.

No one I know assumes people who criticize academia are unlearned. They often think critics are narrow minded, however. There is a distinct difference here. Furthermore, I highly doubt business professors, technology professors, and accountants dismiss the business person so tritely unless for some reason, they hate their own disciplines.

Jeff, I wonder who and how many really believe life is like a university classroom as you insist they do? It seems to me that things like internships, work study and volunteer programs fly in the face of your argument.

Finally, I know for a fact there are many arrogant wind bags in academia, puffer fish who turn off the public. There are many politicians like that, too. And CEO’s. And business people. And fashion models. What’s your point?

kgotthardt, at 3:35 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

Who’s crying now?

There is irony in reflecting that the people who now complain of political attacks on the university were telling us yesterday that everything is political But you reap what you sow, as Professor Baruh puts it. If they had not spent the last forty years deconstructing the traditional academic ideals, they might have a ground on which to stand.

Howard Schwartz, Professor at Oakland University, at 3:35 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

What Academic Freedom?

I an appreciate the concern that preceded sending the article. However, I take issue with those in academic circles who feel that they are beyond the scope and investigation of the “public.” They believe this because of an out-moded system called “tenure” that should be abolished. For too long many in various fields of study have felt themselves beyond the reach of the average person. Believe it or not, most of those average people out there are not that unread or stupid. Each of these professors have the right to express any view they feel is apropo to their discipline and study. That is their right under the constitution and the doctrine of academic freedom. But to be upset when someone takes them to task for expousing a view that is deemed by those people they call less then educated or intelligent, is the highest form of pompous pride. Someone once said, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Ditto! I wonder if those same professors would agree that a Christian educator has the right to present the “theory” of creationism along side the “theory” of evolution and let the students make up their own minds in accordance with whatever “facts” can be brought to bear. They would never do that because they are afraid that some may accually choose to believe in a view contrary to their own. I would argue their right to teach anyway they choose, but also would allow those who differed with them to express themselves in whatever way they choose. There is no room in true acadamic endeavors to hold oneself above the scope of criticism or academic pressure from without.

Steve Lantz, Rev. at Alumnus of Cedarville University, at 4:40 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

War is Heck

I teach in the humanities, and I have for many years watched my Radical-Activist colleagues building and mounting barricades (no small thing for some of them, sedentary Boomers for the most part) to shake their fists at the establishment, teaching the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and enjoying the brave partisan role they get to pretend to play, selfless opponents of hegemonies.

Now they perceive an actual attack, and they are breathless with surprised outrage.

Delicious, ain’t it?

E. Moran, at 6:25 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

Uh, yes.

John, I’m confused at to whether you misunderstood me, or are intentionally misrepresenting what I said. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here. So, I was using the term ‘platform’ as synonymous for a ‘public forum’, as I believe the people you were quoting are. This is the dictionary definition. You don’t have to agree with it, but you’re disagreeing with Webster’s Dictionary.

Whenever anyone speaks in a classroom, they are making use of a public forum. There is no secret code or euphymism here- and hence no need for the quotes you used- a public teaching position is, definitionally, a public platform- it’s a forum to speak in front of the public. I think you’re confusing one meaning of ‘platform’- a public forum, for another- a party position statement.

Your later quotes are confused and confusing- a teacher, by definition, uses their public forum in order to disseminate particular viewpoints. Just the other day, I used my public platform to disseminate viewpoints related to academic honesty and plagiarism. In future classes, I’ll use it to express my viewpoints about how Napoleon’s military strategies were flawed. None of this is inappropriate for my position or area of expertise.

What you seem to be opposed to are inappropriate viewpoints for a classroom, that is, you don’t believe that professors should tumbthump for political parties in their classrooms. Neither do I. But I never said I did. I didn’t even imply it. Again, there’s no secret code here. Like I said, I think you’re misunderstanding my use of the word platform, and not simply casting groudless aspersions here.

rufus, at 6:30 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

Political Science

She said, for instance, that it would not bother her if Alan Dershowitz offered opinions on law professors, but that he should not have been evaluating Finkelstein, a political scientist.

Around about 1987, N.G. Finkelstein completed a dissertation on a topic in the realm of political theory. Perhaps she would care to point to an example of scholarly publication in the realm of political science on the part of this soi-disant ‘forensic scholar’ in the intervening years. Anything will do — a philosophical work, an intellectual history, a theoretical work on international relations, a diplomatic history, a theoretical work in political sociology, a quantitative study of political behavior, an observational or quasi-journalistic study of the Nebraska legislature, you name it.

Art Deco, Garden Gnome at Whatsamatta U, at 8:45 pm EDT on October 23, 2007

Market Forces

PA Man- I agree with you that the academy is already subject to market forces.

Which brings up an interesting question for the critics- since academics are all, supposedly, to the left of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and they’re all, according to you, so openly hostile to their students, as well as completely at odds with the values of society at large, why is college enrollment still skyrocketing? Shouldn’t it be dropping? Shouldn’t Professor Che’s class in Modes of Radical Mumbo-jumbo for Beginners be cancelled for lack of students?

I mean, sure, you can respond with something blustery like ‘Just you wait! We have a mob, and they’re angry!’ which is where many of these comments seem to be headed anyway, but it doesn’t change the fact that those market forces would seem to indicate that you, in fact, are either wrong about the problem, or in the minority.

rufus, at 4:30 am EDT on October 24, 2007

This just in!

NON-DEMS DEMAND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

“Saying that they are fed up with “aggressive incursion of partisan politics into universities’ hiring and tenure practices,” the only five non-Democrat academics in Cambridge, MA, have issued a call to “defend the university” ..

Russ, at 6:10 am EDT on October 24, 2007

Terrific, Much Needed Campaign

The committee which launched this effort should be commended. The bullies behind Campus Watch, Frontpagemagazine, CAMERA & the David Project will push as hard as possible till the other side pushes back, whic is what they appear to be doing.

Winfield Myers statement that academics fear scrutiny is ludicrous. They don’t. What they oppose is scrutiny that is filled with lies, fabrications, distortions & misstatements as the campaign against Nadia Abu El Haj, which I’ve written about extensively at my blog, is.

Sure let’s have a debate. But let’s not accept fabricated quotes, lies about a scholar’s credentials, etc. Such smears should be fought with everythin in our power.

Richard Silverstein, at 5:00 am EDT on October 31, 2007