Sept. 11, 2006

Fraying of Academic Freedom

The start of the academic year — in part because it coincides with the fifth anniversary of 9/11 — is being marked by numerous debates over academic freedom. Over the last few days:

Brigham Young University has placed a physics professor on paid leave, taking away the two courses he had just started teaching, because of his statements that explosives, not planes, led to the collapse of the World Trade Center’s two towers.
The University of Southern Maine shut down an art exhibit featuring the work of a man, convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper, who portrays himself as a political prisoner. Police groups in New Jersey and Maine condemned the exhibit and were planning to organize protests.
Harvard University faced criticism from the governor of Massachusetts over a speech Sunday by Mohammed Khatami, the former president of Iran. About 200 students protested outside the speech — although many of the students differed from the governor and said it was appropriate for the event to take place.
Concordia University, in Montreal, is preparing to play host to a book reading by one of its graduate students today, about a novel set at the university. Concordia’s earlier rejection of his request to hold the event at the university — which officials say was a mistake and the author says was a violation of academic freedom — has set off a furor over free speech.

Looking for a job?

See all 209 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,626
Administrative: 1,892
Executive: 169
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Scholars who endorse dissenting views about 9/11 have been creating numerous controversies in recent weeks. Both the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of New Hampshire have resisted calls that they remove from their classrooms scholars who believe that the United States set off the events of 9/11. In both of those cases, numerous politicians said that the instructors involved were not fit to teach, but the universities said that removing them for their views would violate principles of academic freedom.

At Brigham Young, however, the university has placed Steven E. Jones on paid leave, and assigned other professors to teach the two physics courses he started this semester. A statement from the university said, in its entirety: “Physics professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty. We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones. Furthermore, BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones’ work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues. Owing to these issues, as well as others, the university has placed Dr. Jones on leave while we continue to review these matters.”

Although Jones did not respond to phone calls or e-mail seeking his views, he has published his papers about the World Trade Center on the Web site of a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Jones has taught at Brigham Young since 1985 and has “continuing status,” which is in some ways equivalent to tenure, and carries with it the “expectation” that a professor will continue to hold a position. Carri Jenkins, a spokeswoman for the university, said that Jones was regarded as “a good teacher” and that there had been no complaints about his raising 9/11-related issues in class. She said that Jones did not discuss his views on 9/11 in class, except when answering questions they posed to him after hearing elsewhere about his opinions. She said that while he is on paid leave, he will be permitted to do research on campus “in his field of study.”

Asked whether removing a professor from the classroom for views expressed elsewhere was appropriate, she said that Brigham Young was “committed to academic freedom,” but that the statements Jones made about 9/11 were different because they were not made in peer-reviewed academic journals. “Faculty are expected to submit their ideas to peer review that can be debated by experts,” she said. Asked if this means Brigham Young professors cannot expect academic freedom protections when they write op-eds or speak at rallies or express their views anywhere but peer-reviewed journals, she repeated that Brigham Young supports academic freedom.

The American Association of University Professors censured Brigham Young for violations of academic freedom in 1998, saying that infringements on academic freedom were “distressingly common,” and the university has remained on the association’s censure list ever since.

Jonathan Knight, director of the Department of Academic Freedom and Governance at the AAUP, called Brigham Young’s actions against Jones “indefensible,” adding that academic freedom “has long been recognized to include the freedom to speak out in a public forum without fear of retaliation.” The idea that a professor whose classroom conduct hasn’t been called into question can be relieved of his classroom duties “cannot be accepted under any meaningful concept of academic freedom.”

Knight scoffed at Brigham Young’s statement that Jones was not protected for statements that had not been subject to peer review. He noted that professors at Brigham Young, like professors everywhere, speak out all the time without the benefit of peer review.

Art Exhibit Shut Down at Southern Maine

At the University of Southern Maine, President Richard L. Pattenaude on Friday announced that he was shutting down — that day, and before the exhibit even had its official opening — a display of art by Tom Manning, who has been convicted in the murder of a New Jersey state trooper and who was implicated in numerous bombings while he was a member of a radical underground group known as the United Freedom Front or the Ohio 7, which justified its acts as “resistance to America’s steady progress toward fascism.”

The exhibit, “Can’t Jail the Spirit: Art by ‘Political Prisoner’ Tom Manning and Others,” was organized by a Portland group and also included artwork by some Southern Maine students. When the exhibit opened a week ago, police groups in Maine and New Jersey denounced the organizers for glamorizing a cop killer and bombarded Southern Maine officials with calls and e-mail. This week, protests were scheduled and the widow of the New Jersey trooper whom Manning killed was planning to travel to Portland for the protests. Donna Lamonaco told Maine journalists that “my husband’s honor is being spit upon.”

Pattenaude’s statement cited two reasons for shutting down the exhibit. First, he said that “the exhibit itself, and the purpose behind it, have become misunderstood and needlessly divisive. What was to be a forum has become a battleground. Academic freedom is a precious part of university culture but it is not being served by the current situation.” Second, he said, “I’ve become alarmed about the increasingly intense criticisms leveled at this university and members of our staff, some of whom feel threatened. Our people have acted in good faith, but significant mistakes were made, and lessons have been learned. We just did not do our homework.”

As part of the exhibit, the university had scheduled a forum in October to discuss political prisoners and dissent, and Pattenaude said that that forum would take place, but that he was asking the Faculty Senate to help plan the event to assure full and open discussion. Pattenaude noted that the exhibit included a statement from an art professor noting that the university did not endorse Manning’s views or condone his acts. But at the same time, Pattenaude said that the university did not fully understand the context of the exhibit. “I want to apologize to the people of Maine and elsewhere for the fact that we did not understand earlier the criminal acts associated with this exhibit, nor the sense of outrage and depth of personal pain they generated,” he said.

Organizers of the exhibit could not be reached, but several students involved attended Pattenaude’s announcement Friday and said that he was censoring ideas. Press reports said that students carried signs saying “USM Suppresses Free Speech.”

Faculty reaction was more measured. Michael Shaughnessy, an art professor, said that he reluctantly found himself agreeing with the decision to shut the exhibit. “It has gotten so out of hand and so far away from the intent that this seemed necessary,” he said.

Protests Over Khatami Speech at Harvard

A speech at Harvard Sunday by Khatami, the former president of Iran, set off a political debate on the campus and in the Boston area — with Khatami’s critics divided between those who said the university had no business inviting him and those who said it was appropriate for him to be invited, but that he should still face protests.

On Sunday, about 200 students protested the speech, and there were no reports of disruption of the event, one of a series of appearances by Khatami in the United States.

Harvard frequently attracts high profile and controversial foreign figures — and Massachusetts typically helps with security. But last week, Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who is considering a presidential bid, barred state agencies from providing the police escort that someone like Khatami would normally receive. (Local police filled in.) Romney called Khatmi’s appearance “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

Romney outlined a long list of ways Khatami’s government supported terrorism and violated basic concepts of civil rights. Harvard officials defended the need for the university to be open to talk about Khatami’s record and to promote dialogue. Many experts on Iran also disputed Romney’s analysis of the country, noting that Khatami was seen as a reformer and that his power was much more limited than the title of president may suggest.

Student groups that organized protests included students focused on Iranian human rights and a bipartisan coalition of Harvard’s Democratic and Republican organizations. Unlike Governor Romney, however, the student groups said that they were protesting to encourage tough questioning of Khatami and to draw attention to abuses in Iran. They said that they were not trying to prevent the event from taking place, and they said it was appropriate for Harvard to provide a forum.

“Only the strength of our American traditions of freedom, open debate, and democracy will allow us to win the hearts and minds of reformers throughout the Muslim world and provide an alternative to Islamic fundamentalism,” said the statement from Harvard Democrats backing the protest. “We believe Sunday’s event with President Khatami will be a display of American strength — an important example to the rest of the world of the American tradition of free speech.”

Censorship or Administrative Mistake at Concordia?

Montreal’s Concordia University is no stranger to debates about free speech. While the campus has been calmer of late, a few years back the university witnessed a period of nearly constant protests and tension between Jewish and Arab students. In 2002, following violent protests that prevented Benjamin Netanyahu, former prime minister of Israel from speaking on the campus, the university went so far as to impose a moratorium — lifted after a few months — on any meetings or events related to the Middle East.

The moratorium led some to question the university’s commitment to free speech, while others praised the measure as necessary to restore order. With memory of that debate still very much alive among Canadian intellectuals, many have been concerned by reports in the last two weeks that a graduate student at Concordia was being barred from holding a public reading of his new novel about 9/11 on the campus today, the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

It is not in dispute that permission to give the reading was granted, revoked, and then granted again — but why permission was revoked and then reinstated is the subject of much dispute, with Concordia’s commitment to academic freedom again being questioned (unfairly, the institution insists). The novel’s author, David Bernans, is a graduate student at Concordia and the novel — North of 9/11 (Cumulus Press), is set at the university. The main characters are Sarah Murphy, a women’s studies major, and her father, who works for a company with ties to the U.S. military.

Chris Mota, a spokeswoman for the university, said that she hadn’t read the novel, and that senior administrators hadn’t read it either — and that they handled the request for a room in which to hold the reading without any regard to the content of the novel.

Bernans applied for the room, using the university’s online system that lets people affiliated with the university reserve space for certain kinds of activities. After he was initially told his request was approved, he then received word that it had been rejected. When university officials would not tell him why he was turned down, he started gathering public support, and a series of critical statements and articles about the university started to appear, accusing Concordia of censorship. Bernans and his publisher have compiled many of the relevant documents and placed them online.

According to Mota, it was all just a technical glitch. Bernans indicated on his initial application that he had received sponsorship for the event from a graduate student group. When someone notes a sponsor, that group receives an e-mail notification to confirm sponsorship. According to the university, that notification was never sent, and so was never replied to, and it appeared that Bernans was claiming sponsorship he never had. That’s why the event’s approval was revoked, Mota said. It was restored when everything was figured out.

Bernans and his supporters point out that the event was restored after he went public. For whatever reason, the event is back on.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Academic Freedom and Responsibility

The case of BYU physics professor Steven Jones is especially interesting in this context. His various statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings being caused by planned demolitions and not crashing jet airplanes would not survive peer review (to put it gently). They are part of that curious type of pseudoscience which wraps itself in the trappings of objective analysis but is from the start doomed by a priori assumptions and various logical fallacies. Dr. Jones gets an audience because of his PhD and his position at BYU, but he is not meeting the scholarly responsibilities which are essential for this kind of academic authority.

But should he be removed from the classroom? Apart from the academic freedom considerations, which are important and well covered here, there is also the practical value of such a move. Personalities on the fringes of academic respectability thrive on such “persecution". Dr. Jones will become “another professor they don’t want you to hear". His views will gain credibility in some circles if he is seen to be a martyr for them. Surely there are more academically defensible ways for a school to express its understandable misgivings about the scholarship of one of its faculty members.

Mark A. Wilson, Professor at The College of Wooster, at 6:40 am EDT on September 11, 2006

dangerous ideas and political comfort

I am trying to understand what Professor Shaughnessy’s remarks mean. What does “out of hand” mean? Is he saying that if enough people get angry with the expression of an idea that it is entitled to less protection? Or is he just saying that art can only express politically-acceptable ideas by rich kids who are not felons?

Of course, if the police unions really didn’t want people seeing this guy’s paintings, they would just ignore them.

Mitt Romney is always hilarious. Despite having attended Harvard and never complaining about similar speakers when he was there, he has suddenly “gotten religion” and now cares about civil rights so much that some speakers have nothing to offer and anyone who wants to listen to them somehow should not be able to find such discussions at his old school.

Larry, at 6:45 am EDT on September 11, 2006

Peer Review

I’m assuming that Prof. Mark A. Wilson had his e-mail comment vetted by peer review prior to posting it. Otherwise, the College of Wooster should put him on paid leave and not allow him to teach classes.

Peter Plagens, at 8:55 am EDT on September 11, 2006

I am a little unclear as to whether the BYU professor’s take on 9/11 is considered “scholarship.” If he doesn’t submit it for publication in scholarly journals, and doesn’t list it on his CV as scholarship, a school that actually negatively evaluates him is doing nothing more than discriminating against people who hold certain views. Whether BYU is entitled to do this is one issue, but they would need to be very honest that there is no room at BYU for professors that vote or think a certain way.

Of course, BYU doesn’t seem to really care about keeping the appearance as a haven for intellectual inquiry. So, it does not really matter.

Larry, at 9:45 am EDT on September 11, 2006

murdering artists

Of your two choices, Larry, the former seems more accurate. The sponsors of the so-called art exhibit didn’t choose to present the art of Tom Manning because he’s a great artist. They chose it because he murdered a policeman and bombed Nixon campaign offices, and after conviction for these crimes claims to be a political prisoner. That was why the exhibit was to be accompanied by a forum on political dissent and political prisoners. Having succeeded in “shocking the bourgeoisie", the sponsors of the exhibit handed their president the unenviable task of justifying to the shocked bourgeousie why his college chose to exhibit mediocre paintings just because they were painted by a murderer.

Jack Olson, at 9:51 am EDT on September 11, 2006

which thoughts are worth thinking ?

Mr. Olsen, Let me provide you with some background about myself: I don’t get art. I don’t know good art from bad art. I tried. But no matter what I did, nobody liked my cocktail party chatter about art. Likewise, artists don’t get me. I try to tell them about legal issues and they just give me cocktail party chatter about Bush and Clinton and the Patriot Act.

Now that you know something about me, I will tell you that I only can conceive of this guy’s expressions in first-amendment terms. I don’t really care whether someone calls themselves a “political prisoner” in the US or not, because he would have been able to raise those arguments on appeal. And, for that matter, I accept that he committed a horrible crime, which he is being punished for. But, he would disagree with me.

In this case, it seems that his art has managed to shock people. They respond by saying that their shock is so great that his ideas deserve no forum. They seem to fear that people might respond to his ideas and be convinced by them. This is precisely what the first amendment appears to prevent the government from doing. Police officers would be better off trying to convince people that they are right – perhaps though an art exhibit – or maybe a presentation with Sniffy the Drug Dog to a group of students.

This is not a case where there are limited resources. The university simply responded to political pressure to find that only certain thoughts are worth thinking.

Larry, at 10:35 am EDT on September 11, 2006

Free speech and education

Much of this is a failure on the part of the academy to educate the general public. Joe and Jill Taxpayer and their neighbors, Bob and Beth Studentsparents, don’t really understand our position.

For example, many of them are under the impression that “academic freedom” means the freedom for professors to research and teach, in the fields in which they have expertise, without fear of reprisal for their research and teaching, if the research and teaching is unpopular but academically sound.

They have not grasped that “academic freedom” means the right to a paycheck for life, while spouting whatever notions enter your head in any public forum you can get into. They do not understand that our position as academics makes us automatically qualified to comment on anything we choose, while immunizing us from any negative consequences for our comments.

We really need to do a better job of educating Joe and Jill and Bob and Beth. You see, they have freedoms too. Such as the freedom to speak out and vote against tax increases for education; the freedom to organize to stop tuition increases at state schools; and the freedom to send their daughters and sons — and money — to institutions where 9/11 conspiracy theorists, cop-killers, and Islamo-fascist tyrants are not considered essential to the university experience.

MediaDoc, Associate Professor at East Carolina Univ., at 1:10 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

Thoughts worth thinking

Larry opines, “This is not a case where there are limited resources.”

Apparently Larry has indiputable proof that the University of Southern Maine has unlimited resources of money, space, and time. To that I ask — are they hiring?

MediaDoc, Associate Professor at East Carolina Univ., at 1:10 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

Jonestown

All Dr. Jones is is a 9/11 truth strawman.

Jones is only following through with his role to help the perpetrators cover up their unspeakable crimes. Jones’ purposefully shoddy research and the very timing of this story only serve to confirm that this is the case.

For a definitive analysis debunking Jones’ research, see Morgan Reynold’s article http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones

To find out who demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7 we must simply push congress to reopen the 911 investigation to an independent commission.

rk, at 1:45 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

resources

MediaDoc, The university didn’t rely on a limited resource theory. Indeed, it felt free to exhibit the works of art before people objected. Now, had they not planned on exhibiting the works of art, and the artist demanded that they be exhibited, the situation would be different.

I have not met anyone who conceives of academic freedom the way you do. Instead, tenure is usually regarded as a necessary condition to ensuring institutional freedom to student things without political influence.

As a practical matter (and as a matter of academic freedom), MediaDoc, the availability of resources has little to do with whether you are hired. The question is whether resources will be allocated to sports, dorms, art, presidents, administrators, and last but not least, you.

Larry, at 2:15 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

what makes a so-called islamofascist?

What is it that would make Mohammed Khatami a fascist, islamic or otherwise? Had he full control over the reigns of Iran’s power, then maybe we could hold him accountable for Iran wanting what we have, the power to sway the world under threat of nuclear (or other) attack or to use proxy forces to advance their political agenda. But the president of Iran has only the capability to reform or agitate that the clerics allow. The only reason the present Iranian president has any sway is because his views are more aligned with the clerics who hold power. Generally speaking Iranians are pretty pro-western, pro-America as a group. They want what we have but if we go in there and start beating up on them, or start beating up on their leaders when they come here to talk to us, they’ll come together as quick as we did after the attacks of 2001, against what will become their common enemy: the US. We’ll only be reinforcing what the mullahs are saying about us being corrupt and fear mongering.

Let Khatami speak, let the screw-ball at BYU teach if his work doesn’t undermine his teaching, show the mediocre art. If they are frauds or fools, the truth will out. Those who have stated that suppressing their unpopular views only grants them instant, perhaps psuedo-, credibility are right. If you want their ideas to die, ignore them, challenge them, but don’t supress them because that way they only fester to burst forth at a later date.

bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 2:25 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

The real wonder is how you can teach at the univesity level if you believe that it wasn’t the planes that brought down the twin towers. Just for fun, I popped over to one academic’s website and learned that the second plane hitting the second tower was just a close fly-by, or a very high-tech illusion, but in any case not a collision at all.

Bernardo O’Boyle, at 4:05 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

Pattenaude rolls over

You can tell President Pattenaude is caving in by his use of the evasive voice. He didn’t close down the exhibit, the exhibit was closed down. Why? Reason one: The exhibit and its purpose “have become misunderstood” (by whom?) Reason two: “the increasingly intense criticisms leveled at this university and members of its staff (by whom?), some of whom feel threatened (with what and by whom?)...mistakes were made (by whom?) and lessons have been learned.” Now that lessons have been learned, which is after all the purpose of a college, I suppose USM will be cancelling that course on the musical works of Charles Manson.

Jack Olson, at 4:05 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

the sound of rolling

Mr. Olsen, Some good points. Let me state them another way:1) Lots of things in the world are misunderstood by some. These include the nature of light and cancer. This doesn’t mean that we close down all physics departments and medical schools.

2) The “we feel threatened” defense is a crock, because this mean that academics feel threatened by police officers. Is he really saying that cops, upon viewing a newspaper article which describes an art exhibit will be thrown into such a rage that they will uncontrollably attack a professor?

What a weenie. Can’t he just say that he caved in to political pressure, and only thinks that some thoughts are worth thinking? I wonder who else will be able to get a class or art exhibit cancelled?

Larry, at 5:00 pm EDT on September 11, 2006

Response to Larry

Larry writes, “MediaDoc, The university didn’t rely on a limited resource theory. Indeed, it felt free to exhibit the works of art before people objected. Now, had they not planned on exhibiting the works of art, and the artist demanded that they be exhibited, the situation would be different.”

Why? For that matter, why should not the TAXPAYERS who object have at least as great a say in the matter as the convicted felon whose rights are in such grave danger?

Larry continues, “I have not met anyone who conceives of academic freedom the way you do.”

Pauline Kael didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon either.

“Instead, tenure is usually regarded as a necessary condition to ensuring institutional freedom to student things without political influence.”

How does one “student” anything?

“As a practical matter (and as a matter of academic freedom), MediaDoc, the availability of resources has little to do with whether you are hired. The question is whether resources will be allocated to sports, dorms, art, presidents, administrators, and last but not least, you.”

You forgot to include “consultants” who “work with institutions". Those types waste an incredible amount of time and dollars, in my experience.

MediaDoc, Associate Professor at East Carolina Univ., at 10:01 am EDT on September 12, 2006

response to MediaDoc

MediaDoc, While Taxpayers have a vague and diffuse interest the use of their money, they can only show their preferences via elections. Likewise, they are free to lobby their legislators, though, for the most part, they are ineffective, because they don’t have a sophisticated knowledge of the issues. In this case, taxpayers might have quite a high road to climb, because specifically preventing institutions for airing the views of incarcerated people may run afoul of the first amendment, as such a statute would likely be considered “viewpoint discriminatory.” However, the taxpayers are free to amend the constitution to prevent the expression of certain ideas, but there is more interest in preventing gay marriage or allowing Congress to prevent flag-burning.

Now, some of the facts of this story may be distorted. But, it appears what happens here, is the president succumbed to what many call a “heckler’s veto.” Because some people argued that they were “offended” and others said that they feared “threats” a set of ideas was supressed.

While you may or may not like consultants, very often institutions consider them more valuable than professors of media studies. Again, these are policy choices.

Larry, at 11:30 am EDT on September 12, 2006

Cop Killers and Conspiracy Theorists

I get really tired of some things in higher education, things like inane disputes over academic freedom. (Note, I am not saying all of these disputes are inane.)

In my opinion, the art exhibit was in poor taste, period. It has nothing to do with academic freedom, censorship, or what have you. Please, people, a convicted murderer posing as a political prisoner and artist might be fine in some off-beat gallery in Harvard Square where rebels and reefer smokers chant, “Hey man....down with the institution. You gotta love that sketch.” I have frequented such places, enjoyed them, and I think there is room for them in society. I even think there is room for them in the University. But please, students, learn to love true art and not just rebellion, and maybe we can avoid arguments like these.

It’s not about how popular the ideas are or how unpopular the ideas are. It’s about the art. Art should be able to stand by itself and be appreciated. Art appreciation is about appreciating art, not the biography of the artist, which should be separate. If the art cannot hold its own without us knowing the artist’s biography, then it isn’t good art. And if the art IS good, then there shouldn’t be huge discussion on the biography of the artist, and there should be no issue about displaying it. We don’t need to condone the acts of the artist to appreciate good art. We need to separate these elements and regain focus.

Conspiracy theorists, I think arguing that 9/11 was prompted by the U.S. Government is going to be about as hard to prove as Mel Gibson’s assertion that the Holocaust never happened. Good luck with that, and good luck avoiding the ridicule and disgust that arguments like these provoke. If you think there is conspiracy, then run for office and overcome it. Or vote your friends into office. Or get a job in the government sector and find out for yourself. Then you can go public and expose it if you really feel the need. But please, in the meantime, can’t we find some more practical ways of dealing with theory?

And can we PLEASE stop clubbing each other like baby seals and get the focus back on the goals of the institution? If I want to believe the world is flat, does that really stop me or you from doing our jobs well?

My goodness. When WILL we learn to live and let live?

kgotthardt, at 12:20 pm EDT on September 13, 2006

logical and constitutional problems

kgotthardt, I think there is a logical problem in your argument. Assuming that there is such a thing as “taste” which is a shorthand for aesthetics, the article indicates 1) nothing about the actual paintings; and 2) does not indicate that anyone questioned the aesthetic merit of the exhibit. Instead, the art department decided that it was of high enough quality to exhibit. So therefore, it was likely not in poor taste until people outside the university – without backgrounds in art or even philosophical aesthetics – objected, based on the identity of the creator.

You seem to argue in favor of a four step test for determining whether a university subject to the first amendment – as this school is will exhibit art.

First, the school must determine how to allocate its resources based on its educational goals. In this case, that decision was made.

Secondly, the aesthetics of the painting must be scrutinized to ensure that it is of high taste. Again, the department actually viewed the paintings. You did not.

Third, the identity of the artist must be scrutinized in order to make sure that he is not in a political minority or otherwise unpopular. You can make a good case that this person, because of his prior behavior is unliked, and does thing that conflict with American standards of good behavior. However, this test is probably unconstitutional because people who do comport with such standards – and satisfy the other two criteria – are not discriminated against.

Fourth, the ideas expressed must not offend people politically. This one is blatantly unconstitutional, as it means that only certain pretty paintings, that are compatible with the schools resources will be displayed (if they are done by popular people.) Only ones that depict views that are politically popular will be displayed. In most places in the country, this means that pro-war paintings are right out, as the war is somewhat unpopular.

kgotthardt, I would appreciate you squaring your last two criteria with the US Constitution. Thank you, and god bless America.

Larry, at 2:35 pm EDT on September 13, 2006

Huh?

Larry, I am not sure how you derived a four point process from what I have posted, and I don’t see references to my posting after each point, so it seems you have made some assumptions. Had I wanted to brainstorm such a process, I would have, since I am fond of writing things out in steps when it comes to policy and procedure. My post was more aimed at presenting perspective. Perhaps I can clarify here.

In my (humble) experience, I have seen students choose particular art to display or endorse not because of its artistic merit, but because of the controversy the artist provokes. This in and of itself might not be an issue, as art is intended to make one think. However, again, I question the merit of the art and the process by which it was chosen. Was the art in and of itself impetus for choosing that particular artist, or was the controversy of the artist the main merit? If the art was only so-so and the controversy better, I think the department and the students need to look at how they choose exhibits.

When I use the word “taste” I am not judging the merit of the art (because as you say, I did not see it). I am questioning the criteria and the process by which the art was selected. I suggest selecting exhibits based purely on the merit of the product. If the product is good, it doesn’t matter who the author is or what he/she has done. We are endorsing art, not the acts, identity, or behaviors of the artist. And no true artist would WANT to be chosen based solely on the merit of the controversy he/she can spark, anyway. After all, Jerry Springer can spark controversy without bothering to create art—and, Larry, he can earn over your requisite $100,000 annual income as he does so.

For those who might be offended by quality art by a controversial artist, the remedy is to publish the mechanism by which the art was chosen and move on. Don’t focus on the biography of the artist. Focus on the product. No one is forcing the general public to attend, remember. This is about art and not popularity.

If this selection criteria is followed, controversy over the artist should not even be a consideration. And if the controversy IS considered, THEN you can cry “censorship.” I could look up and cite the theoretical criticism that supports this method of choosing art, but as you pointed out, Larry, you are not an “art person,” and I would not want to bore you. I assure you, however, the selection process I am suggesting is well seeped in an academic school of critical thought.

In arguing for less “seal clubbing,” I am again arguing for more objective standards in higher education, to move away from subjective political views and towards open inquiry. So long as my political views do not prevent me from doing my job, and so long as I am not forcing them on anyone else, who cares if I want to believe something unpopular and even publish on it? I might be laughed at, but I won’t be legally discriminated against. This kind of logic is at the heart of academic freedom, and to deny it is to deny both academic freedom and objective thinking as means to conflict resolution and educational management.

I do hope that clarifies my position. God Bless America, indeed, Larry. In another country, we might not even be able to HAVE this debate.

kgotthardt, at 4:20 pm EDT on September 13, 2006

I Forgot....

“I suggest selecting exhibits based purely on the merit of the product.” I forgot to add that there are objective criteria used for judging the merit of a piece of art. My own study of art has been mostly informal, so I can only give general criteria to use such as medium, use of light, technique, symbolism, etc. (Any art instructors out there who want to post potential selection criteria?)

Clearly, not every piece of art would merit space in an a selective exhibit like this. I am sure the art department could create such a list and a process and utilize both to educate the art-ignorant masses, yes?

kgotthardt, at 6:15 pm EDT on September 13, 2006

I don’t want to break it to you, but it most artists will refuse to give a falsifiable definition of “quality.” Most people I know that fund art to it for social purposes. Schools usually have art departments to give the girls something to study (sorry for the sexism, but I just repeat what college presidents tell me), and other people practice making cocktail party chatter. Whatever the case, art is often selected not for the criteria you name, but for who the artist is.

We don’t know much about the way that this art was chosen. Apparently nothing was wrong with the process pre-exhibit. However, after the art started doing its job: making people think, the college president determined that people had done enough thinking.

I think that Jerry Springer is fairly deep in many levels. Also, his show is well-produced, which is quite a task given the unprofessional actors.

Yes, it would be interesting to test whether identical art by non-prisoners would have this effect, but alas, we cannot. Perhaps there was an (anonymous) critical art process. Likely there was not. Whatever the case, the normal method of selecting art on that campus never seemed to bother people – until it actually made people think nasty thoughts.

I probably would like more “objective” standards (if there is such a thing) but it isn’t going to happen soon in art classes.

Finally, I don’t think that there are many campuses where criticizing a college president for doing something that is arguably illegal is a crime.

Larry, at 9:35 pm EDT on September 13, 2006

Police Riots

Larry writes:

“The ‘we feel threatened’ defense is a crock, because this mean that academics feel threatened by police officers. Is he really saying that cops, upon viewing a newspaper article which describes an art exhibit will be thrown into such a rage that they will uncontrollably attack a professor?”

A certain Democratic convention in Chicago comes to mind. Ditto both major conventions in the Northeast a few years back.

The ACLU web site contains a number of instances where police have cracked heads solely on the basis of disagreement with the ideas expressed. This case is no different. Whenever someone authorized to be armed and use deadly force (or a group thereof) object to something, the implication that said deadly force is on the table can not be ignored.

So much for the 1st Amendment.

Ignorance can be deadly — just ask that gay man in West Virginia who had a heart attack amd was denied CPR by a Chief of Police who wrongly assumed he was HIV+ and wrongly assumed you can get AIDS from CPR. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. He’s dead.

Anon Mouse, at 6:00 am EDT on September 14, 2006

Anon Mouse,

I am trying to understand your argument. You are saying that because cops are known to commit crimes, that a state institution must modify its behavior because cops are subject to no law and might suddenly kill innocent people.

The police are not “authorized” to use deadly force. They might use various degrees of force when making an arrest, but no police department has a blanket authorization to use deadly force. Some cops like to say they do, but this is not an accurate statement of the law

Secondly, as a constitutional matter, the Supreme Court has held that one likely cannot “provoke” a cop with their words because they are simply trained to deal with stressful situations.

Larry, at 7:05 am EDT on September 14, 2006

cops vs. academics

I think the point Anon brings up is a good one. No one has really acknowledged the class/status power dynamic that likely had an inadvertent influence on the decision to shut the exhibit down. It is reminiscent of schoolyard bullying scene—the nerd says something that makes one of the tough kids mad, and then retreats his comments for fear of getting beat up. In the USM case, I don’t think President Pattenaude or any professors were overtly feeling bullied, but I do think it was an emotional, not a logical decision to close the exhibit. They felt bad that people were angry, and didn’t want the bad press.

RE: bad art vs. good art —While I agree the paintings were mediocre, the choice to take the exhibit down was not a matter of taste. Again, they wanted to save face. Also, there is no such thing as judging art exclusively on its own. Art always has a cultural/social context and so does the perspective from which it is judged. Therefore, there is no such thing as purely “good art.” This is a socially constructed notion. That said, I do think it would be interesting to find out what criteria art faculty used to choose exhibits. This might be something to be discussed at the October forum.

natalie, at 3:45 pm EDT on September 18, 2006

Jobs Related to Fraying of Academic Freedom

or search for jobs directly.

HSDCI Case Manager
Lansing Community College

Founded in 1957, Lansing Community College serves 40,000 students. A public community college governed by an elected board of ... see job

Part-Time Health Services Nurse
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District

Part-Time Health Services Nurse Able to work independently, Strong Assessment and Clinical Skills, Urgent Care Hours may ... see job

Assistant Professor-Philosophy
Eastern Illinois University

Eastern Illinois University has a 113 year legacy as an intellectual focal point in central Illinois. Its acclaimed programs ... see job

Assistant Professor of Teacher Education
Fort Hays State University

Assistant Professor in Teacher Education see job

Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Asian Studies: Japanese, Rank Open
Augustana College, IL

Augustana College is a private, selective liberal arts college located on a 150-acre campus near the Mississippi River in ... see job

Computer Information Systems Tenure Track Faculty (2 Positions)
Metropolitan State College of Denver

Urban College with 21,000 students at the base of Rocky Mountain, in Colorado. see job

Assistant Professor Africana/African American Studies
University of Colorado

Posting Description: The Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder has an ... see job

Teacher Education Coordinator, Faculty
Community College of Baltimore County

Job Responsibilities: Campus coordinator in Teacher Education is expected to: advise teacher education ... see job

Physics Teacher-in-Residence
James Madison University

Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job