Political Crime and Punishment

This is an excellent statement of principles by the AAUP. I only have a minor quibble with two points of emphasis. The first is whether professors can subject students to “obloquy.” I had to look that one up; it means “1: a strongly condemnatory utterance : abusive language; 2: the condition of one that is discredited : bad repute.” Obviously, it is good for professors to avoid this with regard to their students. But I think there might be times when a student says something so morally repugnant that a professor might be justified in strongly condemning it. To say otherwise demands moral relativism of professors. Second, on the question of “persistent irrelevance,” the AAUP states that faculty should avoid irrelevant political statements and must receive peer judgment if they are accused of it. This is true, but it’s not enough. The standard for irrelevance should be politically neutral. If a professor engages in persistent irrelevance and fails to teach the content of a class, then it is unethical. But it doesn’t matter what the irrelevance is, and a professor should have the latitude to make some irrelevant comments in class, whether they are about politics or football or gardening. Most of all, the AAUP’s statement doesn’t emphasize, as much as it should, that the proper way to deal with professors who violate these ethical standards is through criticism (and obloquy), not punishment. Even if a professor receives due process by a jury of peers, when a professor is brought up on formal charges for every political comment in class, it will have a massive chilling effect. Nearly all of the time, the proper way for an administration to deal with student complaints about a professor’s comments is by education, not punishment.

John K. Wilson, at 6:15 am EDT on September 11, 2007

AAUP’s Chickens Finally Home to Roost

This is deliciously ironic news indeed!

According to the new AAUP statement, “Modern critics of the university seek to impose on university classrooms mandatory and ill-conceived standards of ‘balance,’ ‘diversity,’ and ‘respect.’.... We ought to learn from history that education cannot possibly thrive in an atmosphere of state-encouraged suspicion and surveillance.”

Mon dieu!

In terms of faculty hirings and admissions double standards over the past 30 years, the vast array of racist shibboleths, ethnic bean-counting, endless whining about gender inequities and lurid allegations about American history, the leading defenders of precisely these sorts of academic abominations have been the AAUP and its leadership.

So now they are having second thoughts? David Horowitz may not completely endorse their latest statement, but it surely shows how accurate about academic debauchery he has been all along.

Chuck, at 6:50 am EDT on September 11, 2007

Class Activity

Course: First-year College English. Subject: Academic Discourse. Topic: Conflict Between Faith and Reason, Religion and Science. Text: Religion and Science by Bertrand Russell. Class Handout:

What is a religion?

Is it good to have a religion? Is it bad to have a religion? Does it matter one way or another?

What’s the main characteristic of a religious person? What’s the main characteristic of a nonreligious person?

What makes a book “sacred” or “holy"? Is there more than one holy book? Can one holy book be holier than another holy book?

Is a holy book true? Are some parts of a holy book truer than other parts? If so, who decides which parts are the truer parts?

What is a god?

What are the characteristics and attributes of a god? Does a god have a body? Is a god born? Does a god die? Does a god have gender? What does gender mean when applied to a god? Does a god have genitalia? Is a god celibate and chaste? Does a god have sex? Does a god eat and drink? Does a god poop and pee? Does a god get hungry? Thirsty? Sleepy? Horny? Angry? Annoyed? Frustrated? Envious? Jealous? Sad? Depressed? Lonely? Happy?

Does a god change? Does a god grow? Does a god learn? Does a god get smarter? Does a god get sick? Does a god get mentally ill? Can a god go crazy? Can a god do wrong? Can a god make a mistake? Can a god be evil? Can a god cure cancer?Has this ever happened? Can a god regenerate an amputated limb? Has this ever happened?

In the book of Numbers, chapter 15, verses 32-36, in the collection of books known as the Bible, the author writes this story about a god known as the Lord: “While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was discovered gathering wood on the sabbath day. Those who caught him at it brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. But they kept him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him. Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp.’ So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord had commanded Moses.” What is your opinion of this god? What is your opinion of the people who obey this god?

In the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 21, verses 18-21, also in the collection of books known as the Bible, according to the author the same god known as the Lord gives the following instructions regarding a son who disobeys his parents and eats and drinks to excess: “If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where they shall say to those city elders, ‘This son of ours is a stubborn and unruly fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all his fellow citizens shall stone him to death.” What is your opinion of this god? What is your opinion of parents who obey this god? What is your opinion of their fellow citizens who obey this god?

Mr. Skank says he was taught that hell is a place of punishment where people are tortured forever in ways so excruciating and terrible that we cannot even imagine them. In the book of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31-46, the author records one of the speeches of Jesus, a man considered the son of this same god known above as the Lord, and in his speech Jesus says that anyone who fails to help even one hungry or poor or sick or imprisoned person is cursed and on the day of judgment will be consigned to punishment in “the eternal fire” of hell forever. What is your opinion of this son of a god?

What is critical thinking? What is logic? What is reason? What is academic discourse? What is academic inquiry? What is science? What is the scientific method? What is the purpose of academic inquiry and scientific method? Why are academic inquiry and scientific method in conflict with religion?

Bob Schenck, at 8:55 am EDT on September 11, 2007

Scorched earth

Horowitz and his supporters deploy a scorched earth political strategy, so I bet new “guidelines” will just be an opportunity for another attack, complete with slurs such as those we’ve read above.

Aaron Barlow lays out the strategy really well in his article The Art of the Slur (The Public Eye, fall 2006). http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n3/barlow_slurs.html

Abby Scher, at 10:20 am EDT on September 11, 2007

Equal Time

Taxpayer rights

Public academia consumes 80% of higher-ed dollars. It is owned by taxpayers.

A large percentage of taxpayers think public academia’s work is excellent — graduates who can follow style books and do basic math.

Even better, taxpayers see taxpayer-supported academics spending more time bridging the gap to them personally, their values, and their native intelligence.

Well, what goes around, comes back around. Don’t be surprised if financial support by taxpayers for academia keeps increasing. You earned it yourselves, and have no one else to thank but yourselves. See below

Give Congress a passing grade for approving the largest increase in student aid in more than 60 years.

http://www.journalgazette.net/app...ticle?AID=/20070911/EDIT07/709110371

Another view

Blind Man, at 10:25 am EDT on September 11, 2007

Double Standards

I think it would be nice if Horowitz and his ilk held themselves to their own standards. If they did, they might do a little bit of the self-censoring that the AAUP is worried professors might be doing in response to them. Instead, their concerns to indoctrinate and intimidate prevent them from acknowledging the inherent hypocrisy of their actions.

But the harm that stems from their beliefs is not merely the result of their intention to indoctrinate others. Instead, the harm stems from their inability to engage in the very forms of dialog that they incorrectly insist professors deny to their students. While they perpetuate through their very actions the notion that merely believing something is enough to justify defending that belief in the political community, most professors understand that a belief should be justified in response to some variety of criticism (though what constitutes an appropriate “criticism” usually depends in some way upon the competence of the one who would criticize and often also upon unique disciplinary standards). The former is what indoctrination means; the latter is what education means. I am quite sure that the AAUP’s position has been sufficiently responsive to public criticism (particuarly since it is formulated in part as a considered response to contrary opinions), and I also believe that it is correct to respond to Horowitz that being open to such criticism need not require consensus with him.

Would I like Horowitz to shut up? Well, I think he does harm to the community through his actions and would like to encourage him to be more meditative rather than bombastic. Would I force him to shut up if it were within my power? I certainly would not if we are speaking of the political community in its broadest sense. However, if he were in my classroom and his inability to regulate himself and conduct himself in a more moderate manner threatened to undermine the possibility for other students engaging in fruitful criticism of their own and my opinions. Is that “indoctrination?” Of course it’s not. As I’ve already explained, it would be justified as an educational priority since it would seek not only to provide a context in which students become better able to criticize their own and others’ opinions, but also because it might provide an important lesson to someone such as Horowitz that certain kinds of self-expression are indeed contrary to the intentions of education, that they are undignified for a human being, and that they ought not to be encouraged in any aspect of public life.

Honestly, does anyone actually believe that Horowitz and his ilk show a capacity to instruct students without indoctrinating them in the very ways they accuse professors of doing so? It’s perhaps understandable that they believe professors to be indoctrinators since they don’t really understand what it would mean to behave differently. They are so confused; it’s as if they are trying to use a microscope to investigate their subject but don’t realize that what they’re trying to gaze through is, in fact, a mirror.

Jason, PhD at a liberal arts college, at 10:30 am EDT on September 11, 2007

Taxpayers only pay 1/6th of my salary

I looked up a recent report on the funding at my university and found that 33.2% comes from state revenues. Meanwhile, about half of my own funding comes from private grants. So, theoretically, when I’m leading recitations, I should be allowed to spend at least 10% of my class time screaming “Say you love Mao!” at my students. It just seems fair.

rufus, at 11:00 am EDT on September 11, 2007

The New AAUP Document

I have now read the AAUP document on ‘Freedom in the Classroom’. The central thesis: outside forces are attempting to impose orthodoxies on faculties who are attempting to challenge students’ existing understandings of how society works and its ethical rationale. Two law professors, and English prof, and a political science prof. are listed as members of the subcommittee. I am singularly unimpressed with this piece of trash. It is inferior to anything the AAUP has published on this matter, and compared to the original powerful founding statements, barely worthy of discussion. Its main consequence in my mind is to reinforce for me what I have already experienced from my 17 years in academe—that when Leftist ideologues are challeged they fight back and hide behind the persona of holy warriors for truth against the ‘fascist, capitalist, male’ structure. That they themselves may be immersed in a now-discredited dangerous idealism kept alive only by the protective cocoon of tenure—a kind of caelocanth whose umbilical cord is the tax payer or alumni—and whose ideas have no cash value outside the self-referential journals, cults, and organizations that scream like hell when they are outed.PK

paul kamolnick, at 12:20 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Max Weber on Universities

Read the whole thing, preferably more than once as it is quite long. (All spelling conventions are Weber’s. It is meant to be one long paragraph, so don’t complain to me about formatting.)

“Universities do not have it as their task to teach any outlook or standpoint which is either ‘hostile to the state’ or ‘friendly to the state.’ They are not institutions for the inculcation of absolute or ultimate moral values. They analyse facts, their conditions, laws an interrelations; they analyse concepts, their logical presuppositions and content. They do not and they cannot teach what should happen — since this is a matter of ultimate personal values and beliefs, of a fundamental outlook, which cannot be ‘demonstrated’ like a scientific proposition. Certainly the universities can teach their students about these fundamental outlooks, they can study their psychological origins, they can analyse their intellectual content and their most ultimate general postulates; they can analyse not what is demonstrable in them but what is believed — but they would be going beyond the boundaries of science and scholarship if they were to provide not only knowledge and understanding but also beliefs and ‘ideals.’ What ideals the individual should serve — ‘what gods he must bow before’ — these they require him to deal with on his own responsibility, and ultimately in accordance with his own conscience. The universities can sharpen the student’s capacity to understand the actual conditions of his own exertions; they can teach the capacity to think clearly and ‘to know what one wants.’ They are however in no way superior to a Jesuit academy, but rather are inferior to it, when they attempt to serve up, as science or scholarship, the personal beliefs and convictions of their teachers, or their political ideals — regardless of whether they are ‘radical,’ either to the left or the right, or ‘moderate.’ They are under the obligation to exercise self-restraint. The one element of any ‘genuine’ ultimate outlook which they can legitimately offer their students to aid them in their path through life is the habit of accepting the obligation of intellectual integrity; this entails a relentless clarity about themselves. Everything else — the entire substance of his aspirations and goals — the individual must achieve for himself in confronting the tasks and problems of life.”

- Max Weber. Max Weber on Universities: The Power of the State and the Dignity of the Academic Calling in Imperial Germany. University of Chicago Press. 1974. pg.21

——————————————————————

The University is not obligated to play nice the State or “taxpayer.” In a democratic system of government the State is an extension of the taxpayer. As such to argue that the taxpayer should have the final say in deciding how the University should operate is just shallow spin on the idea that the State should be the ultimate arbiter of University conduct and content.

To require that the University be the dog of the State, which is what Horowitz is fundamentally asking, is to require the University to fail in its duty.

Joseph C., at 1:05 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Hostile academics

Goodness gracious, sakes alive! Having lived a sheltered life at Harvard, Stanford, and USC, I had no idea until reading Inside Higher Ed that there were so many professors hostile to their colleagues and so given to childish liberal-bashing. We have a mix of political and intellectual positions but nothing like the bitterness and sniping that I read in these postings, like PK’s above. So many frustrated, resentful teachers. I don’t like and admire all of my colleagues equally, but I don’t hate them, even the conservatives!

DE, USC, at 1:10 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Blinkered Reality

I forgive Larry for his gaffes and typos, but his denial of verifiable facts about the Duke Lacrosse Case is positively frightening.

The Group of 88 absolutely repeated their ludicrous claims and conclusions in many classes and overtly encouraged rabid student supporters to disrupt the lives of lacrosse team members and anyone who dared to support them.

The insulting, insufferably vicious claims made by the Group of 88 blended seamlessly and easily with their avowedly hostile views of American society and the role of the university in it, in class, out of class, anywhere they went.

Larry thinks it’s okay for professors to teach students to judge others as guilty until proven innocent. Thank God, poor Larry doesn’t attempt to pursue a career in the law. Now that would truly be scary and confirm all those negative jokes about attorneys!

The Group of 88 lied repeatedly to the media, to their students, and to themselves. Read the new book by K.C. Johnson on that whole farce for dozens of examples.

Shawna, at 2:05 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Larry, Larry, Larry ..

” .. taxpayer’s rights are vindicated via the legislature ..”

.. which is why, funding of public services has been under increasing criticism — taxpayers have become annoyed at (1) cost level and (2) the “quality” delivered.

” .. My guess is that the bad grades were a result of poor grammar, or no research ..”

Lar, ol’ bud, it is the small things that count. As in: my niece took the mandatory science course this summer. Of course, the TA had to take “cheap shots” at the intelligence and ethics of well-known public officials.

What a load of malarky! Can the faculty (e.g., the Duke “Gang of 88″) just do its job first, then demonstrate after work? Like everyone else?

Or maybe they just ought to take a long time off from academia and think about their ability to teach. Whether they come back or not, replacements will easily be found.

As for this — “Taxpayers only pay 1/6th of my salary” —

Ward Churchill used to claim that, along with a lot of other useless, worthless drivel. Until it was pointed out who owns public colleges —

http://www.google.com/search?num=...ned+by+the+people%22&btnG=Search

Yes, I’ve heard the jokes about the public Ivies having so much grant money, the students aren’t needed. That attitude shows in the quality of a lot of the instruction.

Also makes the case for chartering/privatizing public academia. Why should the public bear the financial risk, of supporting what should be private research firms? Especially considering how slovenly, a major part of the teaching is, especially at the undergraduate level?

Buzz, at 3:55 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Why does Horowitz feel he should have been invited to the paper-writing-party? Pretty presumptuous and self important of him, no? No one invited ME to attend. Anyone out there get an invitation?

kgotthardt, at 4:00 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Spine Stiffeners?

Good luck stiffening the spines of academics, the most cowardly of all professionals. That’s a shame, and it is unlikely to change.

Bill, at 3:45 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Spineless???

I have been a tenured professor for 16 years and I take great offense to your post about being the “most cowardly” of all ( of the professions??). As this is my first post after a thorough reading, I am not going to get involved in all of the hubris that I have endured, the “lawyer’s” great knowledge” the grammatician (rarely have we ever seen any great writing or works come from a grammatician.) I am angry at whoever had the audacity to declare THAT ALL OF US, in one sentence were “cowardly". I raised two children alone (widowed, ages 3 and 6), and knew I had to provide benefits for a very sick child. I worked so damn hard for that PH.D. and gained a Masters, Ph.D. and dissertation award from one of the finest universities in the country in FOUR YEARS. I LANDED THE FIRST TENURE TRACK JOB BECAUSE I HAD TOO—- FOR MY CHILDREN WHO NEEDED INSURANCE AND BENEFITS. AND I PICKED THIS PROFESSION NOT FOR THE MONEY (WE DON’T GET PAID MUCH IN THIS STATE) but because I truly wanted to do something to make this world a better place, even if that meant one student at a time. On some issues I am liberal, on others I am very conservative. I am forever getting into trouble with the administration for their ridiculous ideas of what we should and should not teach, of what constitutes objectivity (no such thing really), and I hold beliefs that are not popular with the left or the right (Oh my god, I am a vegetarian, one of those bunny huggers...how stupid of me). I am so sick of the blather I read from people like you. Yes, PEOPLE LIKE YOU (how un PC of me). Most of us got into this profession because we love to teach, not preach, we learn as much from our students as they learn from us. But I absolutely refuse to believe in this ridiculous consumer model, that just because you are paying for your classes, I have to let you pick my books, teach what you want me to teach, and must walk around in fear of bad evaluations because my graduate students all expect A’s. What is the point of all of MY HARD-WON education then? And I can tell you I had the best professors anyone could have asked for and I have the utmost respect for them, from socialist to conservative capitalist. I would suggest all of you critics, you “know-it-alls, go through a serious and strenuous Ph.D. program yourself, and btw, raise a couple of kids by yourself with no support, and no family because you were an orphan, and then tell yourself you need to get the first job you can get because your son’s growth hormone costs 2,000 a month. All the while thinking about how our discipline can make it an easier world for others. Then, oh boy, you get to be on probation for 7 years. Now here is the good part. You may work 89 hours on a damn article, and it may be the best in the world, but it is not what your little discipline thinks is important, too cutting edge,I even had one editor say it was “too scholarly".... and you keep doing this, and you know you are running out of time, and if you are lucky, you just might get tenure. Aha,you make it,and then you are told that since you are a graduate professor, you still have to publish, and publish a lot if you want to be treated well. I HAVE ARGUED ABOUT SO MANY THINGS WITH ADMINISTRATORS THAT I AM USING A LOANER LAPTOP SO PLEASE EXCUSES THE XXXX’S AND OOO’S. EVERY SINGLE FACULTY MEMBER RECEIVED A LAPTOP IN OUR COLLEGE, AND I, I WAS THE ONLY FACULTY MEMBER TO WIN THE DISTANCE EDUCATION AWARD SO THAT STUDENTS ACROSS RURAL MAINE COULD GAIN ACCESS TO A PROPER EDUCATION, AND I WAS THE ONLY ONE IN MY DEPARTMENT WHO TAUGHT TWO DISTANCE ED CLASSES A YEAR FOR (HIGH RISK PREGANANCY MOMS, EVEN A RECENT LIVER TRANSPLANT) BUT BECAUSE I THINK THE ACCUSATIONS YOU PUT FORT ARE MORE FITTING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, GUESS WHO IS USING A LOANER, THAT DOESN’T WORK VERY WELL (TAKE NOT THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN CORRECT GRAMMAR-IS THIS THE LAWYER PERHAPS?) HOW DOES THAT FEEL, ALL LAWYERS ARE....ALL THE LAWYER JOKES IN THE WORLD I COULD ESPOUSE, AND YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THEY ARE NOT TRUE. NOT FOR EVERYONE.

I am so sick of all this “Oh it must be nice to have summers off” business. Do you really think we ever have time off? My God, your assumptions are way off.

As for indoctrination....I tell my students from day one “Do not believe one word I say...go out and find out for yourselves, and yes, you will have to endure a lecture or two...but do not expect the reader’s digest version of what you were supposed to read, you either read it or you don’t and you are accountable. I have noticed of late that students feel such a sense of entitlement, and I have always believed that one starts with respect for all, and if someone loses my respect then so be it. This works both ways. Students should have the same respect I had for my profs. If they lose my respect, they lose my respect. I always ask my students for honest feedback, because I truly want to be a good prof. But some of us teach theory and research, and some of us teach play theories, and some of our courses are fun, and some are not so fun. As a student, when I disagreed with a professor, I took initiative. Often I was so angry I studied liked crazy to find any legitimate criticisms to their arguments. Some of my worst profs. were my best teachers. I am proud to be a professor, it is an honorable profession, and just like any other profession, there are always bad apples, but most of us care more about our students than anything else. I think the ADMINISTRATORS OF MANY OF OUR COLLEGES ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DO THE JOBS WE ARE TRAINED TO DO. FOR EXAMPLE,WHILE UNDERGOING TESTS FOR A POSSIBLY FATAL ILLNESS, (AND YOU MUST KNOW THAT I HAD AT LEAST 35 TO 40—- COUNTING SUMMERS AND OVERLOADS), SEMESTERS OF EXEMPLARY EVALUATIONS, I WAS CALLED IN BECAUSE THIS LAST SEMESTER BECAUSE I SHOULD HAVE GONE ON LEAVE BUT FELT SUCH RESPONSIBILITY, THAT MY EVALS WERE NOT THAT GREAT. I CALLED THEIR ATTENTION TO IT, TOLD THEM I WAS MORTIFIED. I AM NOW ON MEDICAL LEAVE, AND BEGINNING TO SEE WHAT A LOT OF ADMINISTRATORS DO RIPPLES DOWN TO THE STUDENTS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FACULTY HAVE BECOME THE MOST DEVALUED PEOPLE IN THE COLLEGE. I FRANKLY HAVE HAD IT. I WILL DO MY JOB AND DO IT WELL, A GOOD EDUCATION IS NOT NECESSARILY SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU COMFORTABLE, IT SHAKES THINGS UP. IT MAKES YOU QUESTION EVERYTHING YOU THOUGHT WAS TRUE. AND MAYBE YOU WILL RETURN TO YOUR TRUTH WITH MORE CONVICTION. MAYBE NOT. BUT STOP BADMOUTHING MY PROFESSION, WE KNOW ALL THE LAWYER JOKES, ALL THE REDNECK JOKES, AND I AM IMPRESSED THAT EVERY SINGLE PROFESSOR WHO HAS ANSWERED THE CRITIQUES HERE HAS BEEN POLITE, RESPECTFUL, AND HAS ARGUED MUCH MORE COMPELLINGLY THAN ANY OF YOU HOROWITZ WANNABES. YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST YOUR BATTLE, JUST BY READING YOUR POSTS ANYONE CAN TELL WHO HAS THE MORE ACCURATE AND AGAIN, I WILL USE THE WORD COMPELLING, ARGUMENT. NOW I MUST GET OFF TO DO MY EXTRA EDITING JOB, BECAUSE I AM STILL PAYING OFF MY STUDENT LOANS.

Syd, Associate Professor at University of Maine, at 6:20 am EDT on August 20, 2008