Sept. 11, 2007

Freedom to Teach

In the morning class, an undergraduate survey of American literature since the Civil War, I used The Beverly Hillbillies as an analogy, asked students for a short list of classic American film directors, and reviewed the disputed election of 1876. I had opened the class by writing on the board things like “Food and Drug Administration,” “Securities and Exchange Commission,” “unemployment insurance,” “Antitrust Act,” “Social Security,” and “the weekend.” “These,” I explained, “are just some of the things we take for granted today — and that didn’t exist when the action of The Rise of Silas Lapham opens in 1875.”

Looking for a job?

See all 201 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,703
Administrative: 2,312
Executive: 191
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

In the afternoon class, a senior seminar on recent American fiction, I spoke of the ubiquity of television — in automobiles, convenience stores, elevators, and even refrigerators; I mentioned the Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal; I explained the school of thought in communications studies, which links mass communications to totalitarianism; referenced the importance of Chuck Yeager in Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff; and responded to a student’s remark about 9/11 by talking about aspects of Don DeLillo’s White Noise — for that was our assignment — that look either dated or prescient after the events of that day.

It was just an ordinary day in the classroom, in other words.

Every time college professors enter their classrooms — any one of the thousands of classrooms on the thousands of campuses across the United States — they know they are presiding over an extraordinary and potentially volatile space. Not all classrooms are charged with drama, of course; some contain students sitting in remote corners of the lecture hall, catching up on some much-needed sleep. But classrooms that depend on student discussion, commentary, and debate are quite another thing — and seasoned teachers know what every inexperienced teacher dreads: Class discussion can go in any direction whatsoever. Students can pick up on a professor’s analogy — for example, my slightly facetious comparison of Silas Lapham to the Beverly Hillbillies, or my more serious comparision between two characters’ discussion of American literary figures and our own sense of the “canon” of American directors — and run with it anywhere they like; every day, they bring to the classroom their own analogies, obsessions, fully-formed arguments, and passing concerns, as well as the ideas that just popped into their heads a few minutes ago. And in response, professors can pick up on students’ responses and take them wherever on the syllabus — or wherever in the world — seems most pedagogically promising.

This is so common and ordinary a feature of college classrooms that it should need no defense. Quite literally, it should go without saying that college classrooms are places where students and professors can pursue illuminating analogies, develop trains of thought, play devil’s advocate, and make connections between past and present.

But, for reasons well known to readers of Inside Higher Ed, these things no longer go without saying. Conservative ideologues (whose names escape me at the moment) have tried, in recent years, to redefine “academic freedom” as a shield that protects conservative students from the opinions and convictions of their professors; they have introduced bills in state legislatures that would mandate “intellectual diversity” in college courses and curricula — presumably to give conservative interpretations of The Rise of Silas Lapham and White Noise a fair hearing, or perhaps to require the assignment of texts more congenial to the conservative world view. And these initiatives have spawned a minor cottage industry of Student Protection Plans, as state legislators craft bills that would make it illegal for professors to challenge students’ cherished beliefs, or require professors to “respect” students’ determination to defend their opinions, however misinformed these might be.

In response, the American Association of University Professors’ Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has drafted a 5500-word statement on “Freedom in the Classroom,” explaining just what it means that — as the AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles says — “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject.” The document will be published in the forthcoming issue of Academe, and it is — in the humble opinion of this longtime AAUP member (who had no hand in its composition) — as clear and as compelling a defense of academic freedom in the classroom as one could wish.

The statement takes up the right’s four most prominent complaints about professors’ classroom demeanor: “(1) instructors ‘indoctrinate’ rather than educate; (2) instructors fail fairly to present conflicting views on contentious subjects, thereby depriving students of educationally essential ‘diversity’ or ‘balance’; (3) instructors are intolerant of students’ religious, political, or socioeconomic views, thereby creating a hostile atmosphere inimical to learning; and (4) instructors persistently interject material, especially of a political or ideological character, irrelevant to the subject of instruction.” In its discussion of “indoctrination,” for example, the statement argues that: “It is not indoctrination for an economist to say to his students that in his view the creation of markets is the most effective means for promoting growth in underdeveloped nations, or for a biologist to assert his belief that evolution occurs through punctuated equilibriums rather than through continuous processes. Indoctrination occurs only when instructors dogmatically insist on the truth of such propositions by refusing to accord their students the opportunity to contest them. Vigorously to assert a proposition or a viewpoint, however controversial, is to engage in argumentation and discussion — an engagement that lies at the core of academic freedom.”

This, too, should go without saying — but because it doesn’t, conservative ideologues (whose names are just at the tip of my tongue) have been able to mount campaigns against individual professors and entire campuses based on the most specious of assumptions. In North Carolina, for instance, a group calling itself the Committee for a Better North Carolina complained bitterly that the University of North Carolina had assigned Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed to incoming students. Do such people really need to be told, in the words of the AAUP statement, that “it is fundamental error to assume that the assignment of teaching materials constitutes their endorsement”? Do we really need to explain in so many words that “classroom discussion of Nickel and Dimed in North Carolina could have been conducted in a spirit of critical evaluation, or in an effort to understand the book in the tradition of American muckraking, or in an effort to provoke students to ask deeper questions about their own ideas of poverty and class”? Yes and yes. In recent years, I’ve dealt with any number of people (none of them my students) who find my contemporary American literature syllabus objectionable, as if my assignment of writers like Ishmael Reed, Maxine Hong Kingston, and Richard Powers is incontrovertible evidence of liberal “bias.” And last year, a conservative organization (whose name I forget, but whose acronym is ACTA) released a shameful little pamphlet that used course descriptions as prima facie evidence of imbalance and indoctrination — even in the case of a course entitled “American Masculinities,” which apparently set off ACTA’s alarms because there seemed something kind of queer about it.

The AAUP statement also addresses another common right-wing shell game. Lately I’ve been told by conservative critics of academe that they don’t want to restrict professors’ academic freedom in the classroom; they merely want to point out abuses of the classroom that masquerade as “academic freedom.” This is a dicey matter, because sometimes these critics have a point: there are indeed college professors who think that the principle of academic freedom covers everything they do and say in the classroom, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the course material. (Those professors need to read the AAUP statement, as well.) Certainly, no professor of analytic number theory has any business subjecting his students to a soliloquy about the war in Iraq, and no professor of introductory cosmology has any business fulminating about illegal immigrants. And no professor of anything has any business haranguing or intimidating students — for any reason.

But here’s where the shell game comes in. The 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles notes that professors “should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” In 1970, the AAUP clarified this guideline, explaining that “controversial” matter, in an of itself, is not a problem; rather, irrelevant material is the problem.

The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is “controversial.” Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.

Time and again, conservative critics of higher education have paid lip service to this principle, claiming that they object only to the persistent intrusion of material that is irrelevant to the course. But then — sometimes in the same breath — they go after entire disciplines, from women’s studies to ethnic studies to Middle Eastern studies, which they regard as illegitimate. Some critics, for example, are willing to countenance women’s studies so long as it does not involve “feminism” — which, they think, crosses the line into advocacy and indoctrination. Yet it is not clear — to anyone who takes education seriously, that is — why the history of feminism (just to take one possible subject) would not be appropriate material for a women’s studies course.

Some critics make a superficially more careful case, arguing that the criterion of “relevance” should be determined by the course description (and studiously ignoring the fact that outfits like ACTA routinely attack course descriptions). But, as the AAUP statement demonstrates, this is an exercise in literalism so extreme as to amount to pettifogging: “The group calling itself Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), for example, has advised students that ‘[y]our professor should not be making statements ... about George Bush, if the class is not on contemporary American presidents, presidential administrations or some similar subject.’ This advice presupposes that the distinction between ‘relevant’ and ‘irrelevant’ material is to be determined strictly by reference to the wording of a course description.... But if an instructor cannot stimulate discussion and encourage critical thought by drawing analogies or parallels, the vigor and vibrancy of classroom discussion will be stultified.”

The course description is not a contract signed by professors and students; it is not an advertisement for a bill of goods or a demarcation of rigid intellectual boundaries. As the mundane examples of my own courses go to show, class discussion exceeds the bare minimum of the course description on a daily basis; I don’t indoctrinate, harangue, or intimidate my students, but I do introduce them to all kinds of relevant material that doesn’t appear in the course description or on the syllabus; and over the course of a day, a week, or a semester, I try to demonstrate how and why this material is relevant to the discussion. I am aided in this, I have to add, by bright, energetic students who bring their own analogies, obsessions, fully-formed arguments, and passing concerns to class, and who try to show me (and their peers) why these things are relevant to the course material.

I’m happy to say that so far, I haven’t had any timorous, excessively-literalist students who squeak in distress when I bring up television sitcoms or toxic chemical spills in class even though I haven’t mentioned them in my course description. And I’m also happy to say that so far, I haven’t had any timorous, excessively-literalist university administrators who’ve cautioned me against talking about presidential elections, regulatory agencies, or the events of 9/11 in class.

For everyone who has ever dealt with such students or such administrators, and for everyone who might, the AAUP “Freedom in the Classroom” statement is a timely and forceful document. No other organization in higher education could have issued it, because no other organization is capable of enunciating and defining the core principles of academic freedom. And though I do not expect that all academe’s critics will respond to “Freedom in the Classroom” warmly or in good faith, I do hope this statement will decisively clarify the meaning of academic freedom in teaching — not only for teachers themselves, but for students, parents, administrators, trustees, alumni, and lawmakers.

Michael Bérubé is the Paterno Family Professor in Literature at Pennsylvania State University.

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

Great Article!

Mr. Berube, thank you for this article, as it clears up a number of assumptions about classroom activities. In most classes, it becomes difficult to completely ignore current events and controversy because if we do not connect our teaching with the real world, we do our students a great injustice. This is not the same as inflicting our personal ideologies on students. At the same time, professors are allowed to hold opinions, so long as they are willing to note them as opinions and permit students to do the same. Surely, if discussion equaled indoctrination, other real world conversations such as diplomatic compromise and conflict resolution would cease and we would be in a worse worldwide situation than we are now.

There is no way we can predict where a student discussion will lead. Some classes are livelier than others, some students more focused than others, some much more verbal and opinionated than others. While an instructor can do his/her best to guide a conversation, all students do not always like what they hear during these discussions. But do we ALL like what we hear in the media, in political debates, in life? Of course not. Denying students and professors space to voice their opinions and defend them is a natural part of education. Stifling it is neither academically nor practically sound.

I do not agree that course descriptions are not contracts in a sense. Course descriptions are meant to show a minimum of what will be covered in the classroom. Course descriptions should be able to indicate, “This is what I can expect to learn in this class, among other things.” They are similar to objectives in some cases, and they are often used to help a student transfer classes and credits to another institution. The same can be said for a syllabus. Since there have always been issues in transferring, these documents are often the only means a student has of securing fair treatment. It is general practice in some for-profits to advise students who have been turned down for credit to bring in the course catalog and a syllabus to show where and how the transferring class fits into the curriculum of the receiving institution. Obviously, this practice doesn’t mean the receiving institution will accept the evidence, another completely different discussion on transfer reform.

kgotthardt, at 7:25 am EDT on September 11, 2007

Freedom to defund

Public academia is owned by taxpayers. A large percentage of them think public academia’s work is lousy — graduates who can’t follow style books and do basic math. The taxpayers see the faculty spending more time, abusing them, their values, and their native intelligence.

Being working-class, I’ll dispense with the 1,500-word diatribe (Geo. Will, PhD, is much better at that). Briefly: what goes around, comes back around. Don’t be surprised if financial support keeps declining. You earned it yourselves, and have no one else to blame but yourselves.

Buzz, at 9:25 am EDT on September 11, 2007

“Owned"? Not.

Buzz, buzz, buzz. Bzzzz. You do not “own” the academy. You “own” the right to provide higher education for your fellow citizens and for yourself. You don’t get to play self-righteous rabid consumerist just because you disagree with others’ *educated* opinions and *rational* arguments.

I’m sick and tired of the popular “know-nothingism” in current public discourse that mistakes mob rule for reality. Open your minds; get used to the idea that you may indeed be wrong about your most deeply-cherished and sanctimoniously-promulgated ideologies; grow up.

Thinking American, at 10:55 am EDT on September 11, 2007

hmmm

Buzz makes a good point, and his spelling is perfect! I am academic who long ago tired of hearing post-modern feminist nonsense being spewed all over students who cannot spell or add. While these right-wing statements go too far, we need to acknowledge that they do have a point. Introducing our views DOES sometimes constitute indoctrination. When we write about teaching on the basis of our subject Ph.D. (with no Ed.D.) we do presume to comment outside of our area of expertise. And, students are indeed tired of hearing how much we dislike Bush.

JimmiBoi, at 10:55 am EDT on September 11, 2007

Sept. 11 musings

What scares fundamentalists (not all conservatives, I should say) is that when you offer college students a chance to make connections between their own moment and anything else, when you ask them to question their most deeply held beliefs even if that process helps reconfirm them in the end — they do these things. And generally they become skeptical of fundamentalist claims about anything. If that’s postmodernist claptrap, we need more of it, not less.

Beth, at 11:25 am EDT on September 11, 2007

hey buzz you try to persuade the students...

I dare Buzz or any of his cohorts to try to persuade students today to learn grammar or math. It’s a hopeless task— not “relevant” or “interesting.” We can at least hope to inspire them to analyze what they are given to read, though they may not choose it. (But there was an item in the paper yesterday about conservatives being unable to change track in an experiment...)LM

LM, at 12:05 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Berube would have you believe that legitimate classroom discussion is under serious threat from “conservative ideologues". In fact, not even academic thugs such as Duke University’s infamous “Gang of 88″ are under serious threat. (See below for why they should be.) It seems that Berube would ignore major abuses by leftist ideologues, abuses which are happening now and about which nothing is being done, instead playing up a threat by “conservative ideologues” which is politically going nowhere.

Of course, with enough repetitions of the faculty behavior like that exhibited in the Duke lacrosse case, and enough failures of universities to do anything about such abuses, the “conservative ideologues” may actually start to get somewhere. The academy, its Berubes, and its Gangs of 88, will have only themselves to blame.

The Gang of 88: In egregious violation of Duke’s own faculty handbook, the Gang of 88 (mostly Arts and Sciences faculty at Duke), together with over 15 academic departments and programs, (including Medieval and Renaissance Studies and Psychology) bought a full page ad (preserved on the web at “http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blog...636/Listening_Statement_b.jpg") in the student paper, clearly targeted at the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. The ad, “What does a social disaster sound like?", thanked protesters “for not waiting and making yourselves heard"; some of the protesters thanked had carried large signs saying “Castrate” in a demonstration. Despite the fact that no crime occurred (as concluded by the state attorney general), only one of these 88 has ever apologized. Duke University has settled a lawsuit out of court, paying an undisclosed amount (surely in the millions) to the falsely accused players, and settled another lawsuit out of court, retroactively changing the grade of a lacrosse player in a course taught by a member of the Gang of 88 (an almost unheard of admission by the university of grade retaliation by one of its faculty). See Wikipedia “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_A._Baker,_Jr.” for the disgraceful behavior of another member of the Gang of 88, who, nevertheless, was afterwards hired as a “Distinguished University Professor” at Vanderbilt University. Yet, as far as the public can tell, not one of the Gang of 88 has felt any consequences for these actions.

The Gang of 88 is well over 10% of the total Arts and Sciences faculty at Duke. Their ilk exist at most major universities. If our universities do not fix this rot themselves, eventually the “conservative ideologues” will start getting somewhere.

Norman Phillips, at 12:20 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Gang of Berubes

Norman Phillips brings up an important point: whatever Berube has to say about teaching and classroom discussion is completely contradicted by that full-page ad taken out by the Gang of 88. On a related note, Berube once more fails to acknowledge that Michael Moore is fat. So if taxpayers are now demanding that their 10 percent contribution to public-university budgets gives them the right to screen all kinds of research and teaching they don’t like, the Gang of 88 Berubes have only themselves to blame.

Commentbot, at 1:10 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

The essay which you are disseminating is an example of how humanities continue to render themselves irrelevant both in the academic environment, and what is much worse, in the educational experience of young Americans. It is a self absorbed regurgitation which shows how far some of us strayed from a meaningful contact with the student. It is truly sad. I am astonished how you possibly find anything ‘controversial’ or ‘reaffirming’ in this stale exercise, no matter whether you find yourself to the left or to the right of the political landscape. No conservative administrator can do more damage to the relevance of our profession and than narcistic articles of this type.

Piotr Piotrowiak, at 1:20 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

You go get ‘em, Piotr. Nothing less relevant than the Civil War, Food and Drug Administration, antitrust, automobiles, and Bhopal. And literature? In college? They must be high.

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

What the......?

Academia is owned by taxpayers? Well, I will agree that our money (mine, too, Buzz, and all of us who came from the working class) supports higher education. Academia is another thing in and of itself. Here’s an example: you pay for a doctor’s services, his/her professional opinions and treatments. You don’t OWN the medical profession. Academia is the place in which a profession is practiced.

You being working class should know that if I hire you to do a job for me, I don’t own you or the job. I merely pay for your services and hope to get what I paid for. Course descriptions and other documents like student handbooks tell the students and taxpayers what they are paying for.

Jimmi, I agree that many discipline specific experts need to take more education courses so they relay their specialties to their students. They don’t have to hold an Ed.D. to do this, however.

LM, I don’t think anyone can persuade someone to learn something he/she doesn’t want to. But to learn something, we must be able to associate it with something meaningful. Every audience asks, “What’s in it for me?” and we do need to address that in teaching to help provide a sense of purpose.

Norman, the Gang of 88 is obviously acting outside the classroom, not in it. You would have to assess in-class teaching to convince me your anecdotes have anything to do with this discussion.

Piotr, I am not sure why you think literature is irrelevant. Perhaps you don’t think reading should be taught in any setting.

kgotthardt, at 3:15 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Becoming boring

This is getting tiresome ..

” .. You do not “own” the academy. You “own” the right to provide higher education for your fellow citizens and for yourself ..”

Statements of ownership by public universities —

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

As for this —

” .. I dare Buzz or any of his cohorts to try to persuade students today to learn grammar or math. It’s a hopeless task— not “relevant” or “interesting.”

Basic skills of college students have become so sub-marginal, only Ivy graduates might be able to avoid a pre-employment, GRE-like exam. All others must be tested, to prevent damage to the public.

Heck, many of the Duke “Gang of 88″ probably couldn’t pass such exams (70 percentile on quant and verbal). Why should their students?

Buzz, at 3:30 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Okay, Buzz

Assume for the sake of your argument that the state/people DO own the institution. Well, that’s a lot of people. So you have student and community boards giving their imput....community relations. But don’t forget that you are supported by the Federal government as well and that you have out-of-state and international students whose ideas all may vary. Give them all a voice.

But you STILL don’t “own” academia as a whole. No one can “own” a whole industry. That includes David Horowitz.

kgotthardt, at 4:20 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

God loves me and my state?

Let’s see:I work as an academic in a public system that pays well because our president is a great fund raiser and the state has been doing well economically for a long time.

My friend is an academic in a public system that pays poorly because of Katrina and because the state has been doing poorly economically for a long time.

Following the logic of “you deserve to be paid poorly because you’re a shoddy teacher / pinko,” I guess God punished my friend’s school with Katrina and rewarded mine with a good fund raiser? Or I’m such a great teacher that I somehow created this situation for myself?

I feel bad for my friend, but at least God and capitalism recognized my high intellectual and moral worth. I guess She loves good Americans like this lefty feminist humanities professor.

Anonia, at 6:25 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

grammar?

It’s not my job to teach students grammar. If college students don’t know grammar by the time they get to college, that’s the fault of elementary and secondary educators, not professors.

Prof. Smusher, at 8:05 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

Much glory to Buzz for his brave advocacy of the People’s University! The people are fed up with the outlandish views of liberal secular college professors. Professors must answer to the people! No longer will taxpayers be burdened with professors who offend hardworking American citizens by telling their children that they are descended from monkeys! All power to People’s University!

Authoritarian Populist, at 9:25 pm EDT on September 11, 2007

The point Buzz raises is an empirical one. Do most citizens feel, as he says, that academics are doing a poor job of educating students at public universities? If the answer is yes, then this is a serious problem and one in need of democratic debate and action. If the answer is no, then Buzz’s claim to speak for the public because he is a representative of the majority is wrong. Of course, one of the most important skills that professors teach their students is to make claims supported by convincing evidence, so perhaps college has something to teach Buzz after all.

wondering, let’s settle this with evidence, the academic way, at 3:40 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Missing the point

Those of you who are arguing against academic freedom are missing the basic point of education. A student goes to an institution of higher learning to become exposed to new ideas and concepts; some of these may be in direct opposition to what he or she has learned in the past. At the time the student leaves the university setting, he or she may decide to incorporate the newly acquired knowledge into daily life, or maybe choose not to do so. Our purpose is to present to them this information — and, hopefully, how to continue learning; what they do with it is up to them.

The inverse of this system would be a failure: students going to an institution that does not challenge them in any way. We are not teaching to simply re-inforce what the student already knows. It is imperative that a student know how to defend what he or she holds dear; if those core beliefs are strong, they will stay with the student. This has been going on for generations at the university setting, and students have emerged to become good citizens, parents, theologians, doctors, et cetera; they have emerged as liberals and conservatives, as artists and philistines, as capitalists and socialists.

I, for one, do not require a student adopt a certain viewpoint — just that they make an honest attempt to understand the reasoning behind it. I always make a point of encouraging students to challenge the idealogies of the material I’m presenting, but to do so in a rational, logical manner. And, I’ve never seen anyone ridicule a student for having a differing view — real or implied.

As for the “Gang of 88″ — realize that we’re talking about an incident involving a handful of professors doing something 20 years ago. And, yes, that’s outside the classroom; did they drag their students along with them? Did they break any laws, lie under oath, or cause the deaths of thousands? Let’s put this in perspective: I don’t know the number of professors teaching at American institutions, but if we were to assemble a number of legitimate complaints versus the actual teaching population, I’m sure the percentage of “perceived radicals” would be miniscule. Small enough that we’d all realize that this controversy is simply there as a diversion, yet large enough for us to recall that we still live in a democracy that encourages, at least in theory, the free exchange of ideas.

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

You’re making the case for charters — thanks!

” .. No longer will taxpayers be burdened with professors who offend hardworking American citizens by telling their children that they are descended from monkeys!”

Yes — charters would give the public c-h-o-i-c-e in where their higher-ed dollars go. You do a great job, advocating that position, by being so jejune in your thinking — congratulations.

(BTW: some humans are closer to monkeys than others, IMHO.)

Berubians — don’t like public oversight? Bad news: David Horowitz, Anne Neal, et al., are not going away — ever.

So, either suck it up (until charters are approved) — or leave. Don’t worry — you’re can be replaced, easily, quickly, and promptly, via the huge, long-experienced adjunct pool.

And for the 10,000th time — public academia is n-o-t owned by AAUP/AFT/NEA. It is owned by the public. Try attaching to reality — it only hurts for a short time.

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

Buzz proves his own point

Buzz’s own math skills appear to be lacking—he asks how many members of the Gang of 88 could “pass” the GRE verbal and quant sections at the “70 percentile level.” If that’s his standard for sufficient skills, then he’s doomed 70% of the population to insufficient skills in perpetuity, by definition. Or does he [gasp!] not know what is meant by the concept of “percentile"?

Young Americans’ skill levels are shockingly subpar. No argument there. That’s exactly why we need to reform primary and secondary education. To place that particular burden on the shoulders of post-secondary institutions, which only a fraction of our populace ever enters much less graduates from, seems a lot like throwing good outrage after bad.

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

The Greatest Injustice in Human History

I’m not sure how this became yet another comment thread addressing the Duke lacrosse case. Some people are just bizarrely obsessive about The Greatest Injustice in Human History. Let’s recap: the players were exonerated and Nifong was punished. Can we PLEASE now move on to the hundreds or thousands of cases of prosecutorial abuse in which the defendants are not wealthy young men who can afford expensive lawyers and enlist the aid of single-minded culture warriors from coast to coast? Also, can we please call out those hypocrites who insist on the free speech rights of every callow campus bigot, but still want to punish 88 Duke faculty members for an ill-timed, poorly written, but otherwise nowhere-close-to-libelous “listening statement"?

Oh, and for those of you new to this site: There are a few trolls here who simply hate college and university professors. Could be ideology. Could be envy. Regardless, you’re not going to persuade them through logical argument. Best to let them rant and go away, rather than encouraging them to clutter up yet another comment thread.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 7:45 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Buzz: “Yes — charters would give the public c-h-o-i-c-e in where their higher-ed dollars go. You do a great job, advocating that position, by being so jejune in your thinking — congratulations.”

Yes, Buzz, charters would give the public c-h-o-i-c-e, but first we would need to repeal the laws preventing Americans from attending or making donations to the colleges of their c-h-o-i-c-e.

And as for public “oversight": although people certainly have the right to know that their tax dollars aren’t being wasted on $700 hammers, their taxes don’t give them the right to determine how State U.’s anthropology or physics or music departments should conduct their research and devise their curricula. (Even if they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!) Now, you can repeat your talking points another 10,000 times (and you surely will!), but you still won’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

Authoritarian Populist, at 7:45 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Bérubé righly argues that one of the purposes of higher education is to challenge students’ cherished beliefs. But, why are conservative students’ beliefs the only that need be challenged? The arguement by may conserative groups (the names of whome Bérubé is too lazy to look up) is not that students should not be taught to think critically, but that the approach in much of academia is asymetric in its critical analysis.

bob, at 10:20 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Thanks to Anonia,Populist, Beth and Thinking American; Buzz now knows how dangerous it is for a student to suggest that there may be value in a conservative view or error in a liberal view. The response is to crush discourse by ridicule and to spew out a string of liberal cliches as “proof". If that doesn’t shut them up, give them an F.athe em

PC is short for PsyChotic, at 10:30 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Triple comments

As Curley once noted to Moe & Larry: “What genius!”

” .. If that’s his standard for sufficient skills, then he’s doomed 70% of the population to insufficient skills in perpetuity ..”

Yo — an Audi mechanic in Raleigh, N.C., can make $90,000.00/year. With basic math skills, common sense, and a solid work ethic.

You do not need an ethnic studies degree to make a middle-class living. Just basic skills and a willingness to work.

As in: today’s NYTimes editorial page on NCLB renewal:

” .. Corporate leaders have complained for years about job applicants who don’t read, write or think well enough. Faced with poorly educated workers at home — especially in science — American companies are increasingly looking abroad, not just for lower-paid workers, but for workers with the training and skills to compete in a globalized economy ..”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opinion/12wed3.html

” .. first we would need to repeal the laws preventing Americans from attending or making donations to the colleges of their c-h-o-i-c-e ..”

WTF? Where did this come from?

Yo — there is no law that guarantees a public college and its employees, the right to a paycheck. As in: there are too many colleges in the U.S. After the 2009 “baby-boom echo” graduates, there will be enrollment declines. Watch for consolidations — maybe a few closures.

” .. although people certainly have the right to know that their tax dollars aren’t being wasted ..”

Thanks for making the point that the public does think their money is being wasted by faculty that spends more time politicking than productively teaching. That is why public tax support for H.E. is declining. See previous, “campuses could close.”

” .. I’m not sure how this became yet another comment thread addressing the Duke lacrosse case ..”

So let us know, when you’ll be on all the morning talk shows.

Comments by the “unapologically tedious” indicate fear that they might lose their vise-grip on the public purse. Good — perhaps they will improve their performance. History indicates otherwise. But there’s always hope (cf., Sl. Willie).

Buzz, at 10:45 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Education

Education has been defined (by whom and when I do not remember) “as the process by which one is disabused of his/her preconceived notions". Conveyance of new information is surely part of this process; however, critical analysis, stimulated by injection of controversy, of this information is necessary to change the notion. I submit that without change in preconceived notions there has been no education.

K-man, at 10:45 am EDT on September 12, 2007

PC: “Buzz now knows how dangerous it is for a student to suggest that there may be value in a conservative view or error in a liberal view.”

Yes, let the student beware! But is Buzz really a good model for the innocent, well-meaning conservative student who is mocked and derided by snarky liberal professors? Because it seems to me that he showed up here to repeat a rather ill-considered mantra about how the public “owns” universities (and can therefore control their curricula) and to sneer at his interlocutors for their lack of connection to “reality.”

You forgot to add, however, that in (derisively) pointing out the inadequacy of Buzz’s comments, Buzz’s critics are infringing on his First Amendment right to free speech.

Authoritarian Populist, at 10:50 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Blah blah blah. Yet another aging hippie that railed against the ‘man’ when he was in his twenties, who then finds, in his fifties, that being the ‘man’ is pretty fun, and who are you to rail against me?

So let’s see: whole areas of the university, to include women’s studies, ethnic studies, and middle eastern studies (as he lists), WHOS VERY PURPOSE IS TO CHANGE PERSPECTIVES AND INJECT NEW DIALOGUE, themselves can’t be challenged by someone who wants to change perspectives and inject new dialogue? That its ok to challenge the powers that be, but only if you are specifically challenging the conservative powers that be?

The difference between feminism and ethnic studies vs. their conservative critics is that feminism and ethnic studies are part of the institution (just as, in 1963, the difference between feminism and ethnic studies vs. their conservative critics was that conservatives were part of the institution-back when political opposition was still considered chic).

Deconstruction: it ain’t just for Republicans and white guys.

Sk, at 11:40 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Bob *nobody* claims that “conservative students’ beliefs [are] the only that need be challenged” and one of Bérubé’s points is that folks like Horowitz or ACTA have not made the case about critical asymmetry.

(And a more careful reading than yours would show that the bit about names was a running joke — if you read his book you’ll see he’s more than familiar with these folks/groups.)

c, at 12:25 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

protecting the repression of dissent in the classroom

In the latest edition of the official AAUP journal ACADEME, Professor of Women’s Studies Julie Kilmer writes THIS on how to repress dissent in her classroom. I urge everyone to read this: “Coping with Resistance Feminist strategies might be used in the face of individual and collective student resistance. First, we must not be afraid to identify publicly and address directly students who work to undermine our teaching. I am suggesting not a hierarchical approach that emphasizes power differences, but clear, honest, and forthright conversation between professor and students. As Mary McGee says, “we need to teach and model for our students how one responds to this kind of criticism.” When students are intentionally resistant or confrontational, it is important to name these dynamics in the classroom. This means not only asking students about their intentions in private conversations, but also talking about resistance and intentions with the entire class. In order to create a classroom climate in which students are free to express their ideas and at the same time are protected from being hurt by thoughtless or spiteful opinions, I often find that students speaking to each other directly is more effective than the same message coming from me.” I wish I were making this fascist statement up; but I am not. In other words, if intimidation of student “resistance” by the faculty-member herself won’t work, the recommendation is to sic fellow students on the hapless student “resister” in order to repress dissent in the feminist classroom. When Timothy Burke of Swarthmore, a reasonable liberal academic, was shown this on his blog, he was appalled.Yet behavior such as this, recommendations such as this, are s evidently what Michael Berube is intent on protecting. Under the name, unbelievably, of “ACADEMIC FREEDOM

prof. ethan, at 1:10 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

Blind

” .. folks like Horowitz or ACTA have not made the case about critical asymmetry ..”

This reminds of the “Godfather II” scene when Kay is leaving Michael and screaming, “you’re blind — blind to the truth.”

When numerous empirical studies show an overwhelming bias toward one of two major political parties, by a group that can’t be fired unless caught with a dean’s minor child — to suggest no “critical asymmetry” is immediately ridiculous and absurd.

Even more ridiculous and absurd is to think that a “diverse” public will continue to finance this kind of one-sided inanity, now that it has been exposed. George Will said it best: money to higher-ed goes directly to one political party.

H.J., at 1:10 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

politcial asymmetry unproven?

H.J., take a look at the following article about the University of Pittsburgh:

The Pitt of Academic Bias, in FrontPageMag.com—01/12/06.

Many here will not like the source. No one here can dispute the facts presetned there.

prof. Ethan, at 1:25 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

2+2=5?

Berube’s utterly inane and one-sided diatribe would have us believe that the real danger to the academy is from right wing ideologues whose names he cannot remember.

Berube’s selective amnesia is not surprising. Not only can’t he remember relevant facts, he apparently hasn’t read many. Let me try to help.

Whole sections of the academy have been taken over by individuals whose sole capability resides in inventing weak pseudo-research, then protecting it with vicious censorship. Incoming students “learn” that 27% of the women will be sexually assaulted. People who challenge such “facts” are (as the preceding correspondent demonstrated, and is well documented by Daphne Patai in her book, “Professing Feminism") are subject to humiliating attacks and ostracism in the classroom. They “learn” that there are no real intellectual differences between men and women. They learn that the twin towers were filled with Little Eichmans. They learn that the Duke lacrosse players were obviously guilty. They “learn” (at Brown university) that there are not two sexes but many. They “learn” that the best way to overcome racial disparities in the law profession is to deny admission to qualified whites and Asians in favor of far less qualified blacks. When data suggest this leads to serious damage to the overmatched black law students, the researchers presenting the data are attacked. When the same researchers try to gain access to data to refute the attacks, the “liberal” professors at Berkeley sue to DENY ACCESS TO THE DATA!

Anyone who speaks out against the orthodoxy of inanity (think Larry Summers, who mildly opined that other factors besides discrimination might explain differences in gender representation in math and sciences. Summers’ conjecture is supported by most authoritative research on the subject.) is quickly run out of town or, at the very least, ostracized.

The students “learn” that Al Franken is a brilliant and witty comedian and politician, while Ann Coulter is nothing but a dangerous crank. And, Mr. Berube, tell me —- how often has Al Franken been shouted down and threatened while speaking on campus?

The students “learn” at Cal Berkeley that it is perfectly OK to destroy newspapers, trash an office, and threaten the lives of student journalists, simply because the newspapers contain a carefully crafted rebuttal (in a paid advertisement) of the absurd notion that all black Americans should receive “reparation” payments.

I could go on, and on, and on. Berube apparently knows nothing of any of this. I am not surprised. Reminds me of when a certain low-ranked Democrat president was crushed in an election, and a New Yorker commented to a friend, “I don’t understand. I don’t know a single person who voted for him.”

JimInNashville, at 1:50 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

Thanks to everyone for commenting on my little essay. kgotthardt (comment 1), I think you’re using the term “contract” a bit more loosely than I am; all I meant was that when class discussion exceeds the boundaries of the course description, no binding legal document has been violated.

Buzz, you talk about charters and NCLB and public ownership of schools. You are aware that IHE is actually an online publication devoted to higher education, right? Because most of your remarks sound like they’re about the K-12 system. Strange to say, I’ve learned in the past few years that a lot of people don’t know the difference.

And Bob, can you find someplace where I suggested that “conservative students’ beliefs [are] the only [beliefs] that need be challenged?” Because I’m not seeing it. But thanks for calling me too lazy to look up the names of conservative groups! You’ve made my day. The truth, however, is that I’m not too lazy— I’m too ignorant. I simply have no idea how to “look” things “up.” If only there were a “search” “engine” somewhere I could use. . . .

And everyone else who’s brought up things that have nothing to do with my essay or the AAUP statement — thanks also! It’s good to see that the IHE comment section is the same as it ever was. JimInNashville, extra special thanks for mentioning Ward Churchill — until you showed up, I was one square away from having IHE Comment Bingo.

Once again with feeling, folks: no professor of anything has any business haranguing or intimidating students — for any reason. Just in case you missed that bit the first time around.

Michael Bérubé, at 3:00 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

Question for Michael

It’s all very well to say that no professor should intimidate students, but the essay by Julie Kilmer was published in the official AAUP journal and the new ideas on “reframing freedom to teach” proposed by Carey Nelson and all the atmospherics of both Professor Nelson’s and your own essays indicate a desire to protect her and her type of teaching from Horowitz, rather than to protect the students from her. How do you propose doing the latter, aside from expressing conventional pieties?

Kilmer’s fascist document gains publication in the official AAUP journal, Churchill was a full professor and Chair of a Department, many of the Duke 88 are full professors, Michael. If the faculty cannot or refuses to regulate its own behavior, and refuses to impose professional standards of conduct upon itself, what do you suppose is going to happen?

prof. ethan, at 3:45 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

I don’t care for Professor Kilmer’s take on student “resistance” any more than Tim Burke does, Prof. Ethan. This isn’t the first time I’ve agreed with Burke— nor, I suspect, will it be the last. But you vastly overstate Burke’s reaction: he said Kilmer’s idea of pedagogy was 100 miles from his, and he said he didn’t think it was very common. (That blog post and thread are fascinating reading, by the bye, for anyone who’s interested: it’s at http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=424) And Tim certainly didn’t agree (nor do I) that the essay amounts to “fascism.” Finally, Academe is not some kind of company bulletin; it is a journal. It publishes many things with which the leadership and most of the membership might disagree.

But there is no reason to link Kilmer’s essay (or mine) to Ward Churchill or the Duke lacrosse case— or the water buffalo incident, or Al Franken, or the Horowitz ad on reparations, etc. (Churchill was recently fired, if memory serves; is the problem that he was not tarred and feathered as well? Are you suggesting that the Duke 88 be fired or sanctioned or put in the stocks so that KC Johnson can spend the next few years throwing rotten fruit at them?) And if you’re seriously interested in professional standards of conduct, I suggest you consult the AAUP Redbook; it’s really quite a careful and thorough set of documents.

Michael Bérubé, at 4:20 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

protecting repression in the classroom

Burke found Julie Kilmer’s suggestion that students be used to crush dissent in the classroom—note that it is presented with a total lack of self-consciousness—to be repulsive.

Yes, Kilmer’s essay was not an official statement by the AAUP. But by being printing it in ACADEME, along with another similar article as part of a dual defense of feminist pedagogy, and both essays coming with an official editorial that argued that the problem of repression was coming from the Right, I don’t see how you can argue that the AAUP was not voluntarily giving great (and undue) seriousness to her position. I doubt that they decided to publish her essay in order to expose her as a fascist.

If someone on your campus was acting the way Kilmer advocates that faculty act against “resistance” in the classroom, just what would you do, Michael? You know as well as I do that in many cases the system has broken down and nothing would be done and that the administrators would act first and foremost “to protect the institution".

Here’s another example: the Chair of Political Science at Pitt, himself a full professor, publishes an article with three untenured professors arguing that Christians are too stupid to hold positions in the best universities (see B. Ames-D. Barker-C. Booneau-J. Carman, The Forum 3: 2, article 7: 2005). These are three untenured professors who are dependent upon the Chair’s good letter to get tenure. The same article denies that politics is involved in either hiring or tenure.

Who is going to impose professional standards of conduct if something like this—or Kilmer’s behavior—happens? The obvious answer so far is: no one in academia. We’re too afraid of Horowitz. Perhaps I’m wrong, but you seem more concerned with Horowitz, and other than expressing some platitudes tsk-tsk’ing about intimidation in the classroom, less concerned with the issue of professional standards of conduct in the classroom. In fact, you don’t think the latter is a major problem. And this seems to be both your position and that of the AAUP.

I totally agree that the entire discussion on Tim Burke’s blog, which you cite, is worth reading. I agreed with several respondents that the premise of Tim’s essay was wrong, and that there is NOT much hostility to academia among the American public. I worry that if things go the way they are going, however, this will change. KC Johnson’s book about the Duke scandal, in which the Duke 88 figure very very prominently, is a best seller at this point.

prof. ethan, at 6:00 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

Charter higher ed

” .. Because most of your remarks sound like they’re about the K-12 system ..”

Mr. Berube: no, we’re talking about —

* removing public higher education from direct connection with taxing authorities (e.g., state of North Carolina) and

* providing private college students with the same funding level as public colleges (vs. Michigan’s shameful union-driven attempt to cut off such funding).

In other words, to make public higher ed, more accountable to the public.

Yes, I know, that’s a terrible thing for those who make a living, endlessly criticizing everything (e.g., Howard Zinn, who criticized every U.S. President — all of them — on NPR).

Well — get used to it, it is going to happen. There are plenty of replacements for the Howard Zinn wanna-be crowd. Lots of them, willing and qualified as replacements.

BTW: AP, thank you for your support of the 1st Amendment. Tenured radicals demand it for themselves, love to deny it to others, viz. Mao, Stalin. They only create problems for themselves.

As to the matter of “ownership” — that was in respect to Mr. Ward L. Churchill, who kept claiming his classes were “profitable,” as if he had the “right” to his job.

No — WLC did NOT own his CU classroom. The people of Colorado do, directing its agents for overall management of CU. Note this —

from —

http://ibs.colorado.edu/cspv/info...arch_words=Firearms+Ownership+Causes

Buzz, at 9:40 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

I’m often reminded of something P.J. O’Rourke (I think it was him) said way back during the first time “P.C.” made a go-round as a bete noire/punching bag/threat to Western Civ. He said, approximately, that in our society, the majority of CEOs are capitalist-roader conservatives, and the majority of college professors are bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberals, and that getting worked up over this is silly, because most people, if they bother to think about it, LIKE IT THAT WAY. How else would you like to structure society?

Horowitz, Buzz et al. should think twice about forcing fascist libtards out of academia and into the Real World [tm] — where they/we might do Real Damage [tm].

Ben, Assistant Means of Production at Enormous State University, at 9:50 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

There are two points which are extremely clear to ;me. First, if conservative commentators are the only ones complaining, does that mean the other point of view is pleased with the status quo?Secondly, if the only way a professor can initiate discussion is to use either George Bush or Bill Clinton, is that not a sign of lack of imagination on the part of the teacher? Not to mention, of course, that the choice of either certainly may demonstrate a bias.

M. Hopson, Dr., at 9:50 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

BERUBE’S BAD TIMING

On the same day that Professor Berube posts an article on the grave danger posed to academic freedom by those intolerant conservatives, Erwin Chemerinsky, a well-known leftist law professor, has an offer to be the dean of the new UC-Irvine law school rescinded, allegedly for political reasons. Prominent cogs in the dreaded “right-wing noise machine", including Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, and John Leo, quickly and loudly jump into the fray...with blistering criticism of UCI and in full support of Chemerinsky. Oh, the irony.

Al, at 5:20 am EDT on September 13, 2007

Two points: One, hasn’t anyone mentioned the fact that universities are one of the most conservative institutions in this country? Not neoconservative in the Jacobite ways of Bush — the guys who are actually revolutionary with their nonsense about educating non-Americans into the wonders of the American way (which sure sounds a lot like Johsonian liberalism). I mean conservative in the bureaucratic way that Weber discussed. People vested in the academic system (of all persuasions) sure appear quite happy with a caste system, whatever their ideological affiliation. And two, what exactly is this ‘liberal bias’ supposedly doing to students? Harming their minds? Ruining their lives? Since when have college teachers gained the power to subvert the patriotic hearts of otherwise right-thinking, corn-fed patriots? If so much of what these bad liberals teach is so crappy, are students too stupid too notice? I am being serious: how exactly does some supercon boy get damaged by hearing an evil feminist? And, as for the lament of fairness (’it’s not fair! “They” only attack conservative views!"): remember the point of higher education — to question conventional wisdom and prevailing norms. Oh, yeah, that Socrates guy — now why was he convicted and found to be such a threat? “Corrupting the youth” I think the charge was, and yep, he even admitted to advocating questions. Imagine that. I’m sure he was also a closet feminist!

RJ, at 5:20 am EDT on September 13, 2007

freedom to repress

More from the latest ACADEME, the official journal of the AAUP:

From Pamela L. Caughie’s essay “Impassioned Teaching", which was paired in Academe with the appalling comments of Julie Kilmer on how to handle “resistance” in the classroom:

“In twenty years of teaching I have never gone into the classroom hoping to make converts that day. Still, I feel I am doing my job well when students become practitioners of feminist analysis and committed to feminist politics.”

This statement was then followed by an editorial by Rachel Levinson, an AAUP official [Acting Legal Counsel], which ended with a warning to not to focus “on faculty members’ ideological leanings.”

And this issue of Academe was immediately followed by AAUP releasing a statement on principles “to defend rights of faculty members against those calling for anti-indoctrination or balancing measures", to quote Insidehighered.com.

Prof. Ethan, at 5:20 am EDT on September 13, 2007

Freedom to be Larry

“On the same day that Professor Berube posts an article on the grave danger posed to academic freedom by those intolerant conservatives ..”

Lest we forget —

Larry Summers, Harvard University president & Clintonite, R.I.P.

Dr. Summers, you deserved better than the ideological lynch mob you got. A lot better.

Buzz, at 8:40 am EDT on September 13, 2007

Addendum: AAUP and the Freedom to Indoctrinate

As I noted above, Pamela L Caughie is the author of these immortal lines from the AAUP journal ACADEME: “In twenty years of teaching I have never gone into the classroom hoping to make converts that day. Still, I feel I am doing my job well when students become practitioners of feminist analysis and committed to feminist politics".

And while this is not an official statement from the AAUP, I forgot to add that the author of the above statement is not only a full professor of English and Women’s Studies, but she is also president of the local AAUP chapter at her university.

And the editorial by the national AAUP legal official that followed Caughie’s declaration of satisfaction in indoctrination and Kilmer’s advice on how to handle “resistance” in the classroom? The main focus of that editorial is a warning outsiders not to interfere with the universities, and this is the meaning of the last remark, which I quoted, warning not to focus on faculty ideology.

Again, this issue of Academe was immediately followed by the new official statement of principles by the President of the AAUP which Insidehighered.com itself describes as “defend[ing] rights of faculty members against those calling for anti-indoctrination or balancing measures.”

Prof. Ethan, at 8:40 am EDT on September 13, 2007

Free to charter

” .. Because most of your remarks sound like they’re about the K-12 system ..”

No, we’re talking about —

* removing public higher education from direct connection with taxing authorities (e.g., state of North Carolina) and

* providing private college students with the same funding level as public colleges (vs. Michigan’s union-driven attempt to cut off such funding).

That is, to make public higher ed, more accountable to the public.

Yes, I know, that’s a terrible thing for those who make a living, endlessly criticizing everything (e.g., Howard Zinn, who criticized every U.S. President — all of them — on NPR).

Well — get used to it, it is going to happen. There are plenty of replacements for the Howard Zinn wanna-be crowd, willing and qualified.

BTW: AP, thank you for your support of the 1st Amendment. Tenured radicals demand it for themselves, love to deny it to others (viz. Mao, Stalin). How unfortunate; they only create problems for themselves.

As to the matter of “ownership” — that was in respect to Mr. Ward L. Churchill, who kept claiming his classes were “profitable,” as if he had the “right” to his job.

No — WLC did NOT own his CU classroom. The people of Colorado do, directing its agents for overall management of CU. Note this —

from —

http://ibs.colorado.edu/cspv/info...arch_words=Firearms+Ownership+Causes

Buzz, at 8:50 am EDT on September 13, 2007

My Bad Timing

Heh. Indeed. And just imagine if Chemerinsky hadn’t been fired by UCI Chancellor Michael Drake as a result of pressure from conservatives in the first place! That would have disproven my argument about conservative pressure even more thoroughly!

Michael Bérubé, at 10:15 am EDT on September 13, 2007

Freedom

Some conservatives have a point about liberal ideology being passed off as empirically supported truth. Two of the most obvious examples of this can be seen in the widespread development and promotion of women’s studies and african-american studies programs. I doubt you will find a single conservative in those programs. And let’s be honest, these programs are neither diverse or scientifically oriented. They exist to appease the PC crowd.

Tenured and Loving It, Professor at Massive State University, at 12:10 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

MAN BITES DOG

Professor Berube,

First, although facts are sparse at the moment, it appears that Chemerinsky was fired based upon the overreaction of an (inexperienced? incompetent?) Chancellor to the real or perceived preferences of a potential major donor. To say that he was fired “as a result of pressure from conservatives in the first place” seems to be a vast overstatement.

Second, in addition to the inexplicably pathetic way that UC-Irvine has handled the matter, the most noteworthy thing about this case is its man bites dog nature. Just for fun, compare the reaction of “conservatives” to the appointment of Professor Chemerinsky to what the reaction from the other side would have been to the appointment of, say, Ken Starr or John Yoo as dean of a UC law school.

Al, at 12:10 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

“Could you persuade us, if we don’t listen?”

The rancor between left and right in these comments has been provoked, I’m afraid, by Prof. Bérubé’s focus on right-wing critics of academia. Let’s remember that there are left-wing critics of academia, too. The fundamental issue is not left vs. right, but political pressure vs. intellectual inquiry. Plato economically introduces the issue in a little banter at the beginning of the Republic:

Polemarchus: But do you see how many we are?

Socrates: Certainly.

Polemarchus: Well, then, either you must prove yourselves stronger than all these people or you will have to stay here.

Socrates: Isn’t there another alternative still: that we persuade you that you should let us go?

Polemarchus: But could you persuade us, if we don’t listen?

This is the essence of the problem. People who have or seek power don’t want to give those who may disagree a chance to be heard. The academy has to be a place where dissidents — and those who care about truth, not just power — get the opportunity to be heard. Otherwise, we might as well mix a hemlock cocktail for all the intellectuals and be done with them.

I encourage everyone to read the original AAUP report, which I find refreshingly free of political bias, left or right:

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/class.htm

A Socratic, at 12:20 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

free to indoctrinate

Michael, if you have the time, I’d like your comment on Professor Caughie’s statement: “In twenty years of teaching I have never gone into the classroom hoping to make converts that day.[NB: THAT DAY]. Still, I feel I am doing my job well when students become practitioners of feminist analysis and committed to feminist politics.”

Remember, not only was this statement published in the AAUP journal Academe, but this person is also PRESIDENT of her local AAUP chapter. Do you really think there’s no problem here?

What I myself see as a problem is not only the statement of Caughie, or Kilmer’s expert advice on how to suppress dissent in a classroom, but the sheer unselfconsciousness with which these statements are made and such advice is given.

This unselfconsciousness suggests to me that folks such as Caughie and Kilmer are representative of a broader academic culture in which such statements and such advice rarely receive any challenges, and are in fact, unproblematic and noncontroversial to most of the colleagues Caughie and Kilmer know. Sort of like the unselfconsciousness with which Barry Ames, the Chair of Political Science at Pitt, wrote his “Christians are stupid” article in The Forum. (I leave aside the corruption involved in Ames getting THREE untenured faculty in his own department to write this article with him, while simultaneously claiming that politics will not determine their future!)

I suspect that you probably see all this as mere scattered and unimportant and forgiveable incidents. I think you should recognize that where you (the person in power in the hierarchy) see scattered and unimportant and forgiveable incidents, others, with less power, see an important and un-forgiveable PATTERN of behavior among faculty.

Prof. Ethan, at 12:20 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

Oh.

” .. The academy has to be a place where dissidents .. get the opportunity to be heard ..”

Yes. The United Nations, Hugo Chavez, CNN, The New York Times’ editorial page, Fidel Castro, “The Nation,” “In These Times,” Le Monde, The Guardian, Al-Jazzera (sp?), the Internet, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Kanye West, et al., really do not exist. Any work attributed to the aforementioned is fake as moon landings.

What a travesty of justice. Let’s be more like Cuba, per Mr. Moore.

Buzz, at 2:25 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

No, Prof. Ethan, I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with a situation in which students learn to practice feminist analysis and become committed to feminism. As long as students are free not to do those things without penalty, no line has been crossed— unless, of course, you consider it prima facie unethical to be Teaching While Feminist.

Michael Bérubé, at 3:05 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

No child left behind as attack on intellectual freedom

Michael Bérubé’s article is well received and argued by this professor and student who has been in the academic world for the last 30 years. However, are looking at the smaller evil and ignoring the larger evil: the Dept of Ed via accrediting agencies are mandating certain “accountability” which is really a disguised way of dictating to professors—and thereby also to students indirectly—what goes into their syllabai. They call it “Learning Centered” approaches but like “no child left behind,” its grade school cousin, it is an oxymoron. Only that which can be quantified counts as “learning"—I kid you not! The implications of this are subtle, but obvious. At my institution you cannot get tenure if you do not do this, i.e., pedagogy is being coercively mandated. What Michael Bérubé’s article ignores is how the structural and institutional changes implemented by conservatives are changing the game from the top down. That is far worse than the ranting of some hacks and some idiotic loud-mouthed (if well funded) undergrads.

K, at 3:55 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

Advocacy as mere proper pedagogy

Honestly, I am shocked. I thought better of Michael Berube. Michael finds nothing wrong with THIS statement: ” “In twenty years of teaching I have never gone into the classroom hoping to make converts that day. Still, I feel I am doing my job well when students become practitioners of feminist analysis and committed to feminist politics.”

I’m going to paraphrase my friend Mark Bauerlein of Emory University at this point, who at Mindingthecampus.com has made his own comments on the hideous statements of Kilmer and Caughie in Academe:

What Michael does here is to endorse classroom political advocacy of the political stances he approves of, via masquerading this politics as mere scholarly methodology. He is also endorsing classroom political advocacy of political stances he approves of, via masquerading this politics as normal and proper pedagogy. Merely substitute “Conservative, Marxist, Racist", and see where we end up. Would Michael approve Prof. Caughie’s statement if the ideology were different?

The endorsement of political advocacy (neither Caughie nor Kilmer make any secret of it) as mere normal and proper pedagogy and methodology is the sleight-of-hand that is going on here. This attitude currently frames many decisions in curriculum, hiring, and promotion, especially in the Humanities. I’ve personally seen some pretty outrageous examples of it in my own Department.

The reason professors can declare such biases so blithely as Caughie and Kilmer have done is precisely because these biases have acquired a disciplinary sheen, the mantle of professional criteria. If Caughie believes that she has done a good job if she (over time) converts her students into feminist political advocates,i.e., that THIS IS her job, then what has happened to the vaunted critical thinking professors prize, and the injunction that students learn to question orthodoxy and convention in the classroom? Caughie’s explicit aim in the classroom is to produce versions of HERSELF.

And this is more than an ego trip — she sees it as a professional duty: “I feel I am doing my job well when students become practitioners of feminist analysis and committed to feminist politics".

And Michael Berube finds nothing wrong with this. Wow.

Prof. Ethan, at 4:55 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

Buzz, I don’t see your point. No one said that the academy is the only place where leftist (and rightist!) dissidents can be heard. Fortunately we have a free press, the Internet, etc. But the academy is supposed to be a place where sustained inquiry and debate can take place in an atmosphere relatively free from intimidation, political and commercial pressures, and fear of losing one’s job. My point was simply that it’s important to preserve that atmosphere. And as you will see if you reread my post, my argument — unlike yours — is strictly nonpartisan. On my campus, we’ve had both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter speak. I approve of both events (which does not imply that I agree with either of the speakers).

A Socratic, at 4:55 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

“Learning Centered” mandates—awful

I agree with K. And this is coming from conservatives.In my own Dept, we’ve found ways around the bureaucracy on this issue, so my attention doesn’t go there.

I guess this is why to me as a faculty-member, the corruption of the faculty, its inability to maintain proper standards of professional responsibility in the classroom, is more important and shameful. But I agree that the problem with the govt raised by K is a serious one and growing worse, and it’s not coming from the Left.

Prof. Ethan, at 4:55 pm EDT on September 13, 2007

Freedom from eternal taxation

” .. But the academy is supposed to be a place where sustained inquiry ..”

A noble concept. Why not sustain it by yourself and other similarly-minded persons? And avoid Republican interference?

For instance, take the TIAA-CREF account of a recently-departed U. of Colo. professor (WLC). That gent’s account has an imputed asset base of $1,000,000.00 in Lockheed, Haliburton, et al.

You and he have the money to do what you want. Gen-X and Gen-Y do not have the money.

Buzz, at 6:05 am EDT on September 14, 2007

Careful what you wish for Buzz

Accountability, huh, Buzz? Be careful what you wish for.

You want me to account for the 80 hours per week I put in, in order to bring in grant money, to cover my salary so that you as an NC taxpayer, contribute very little to it? All the while while I work on important health problems you might care about, like, say cancer and heart disease?

Okay, great. Then pay me the going rates for my work. While you’re at it, pay me a salary directly from NC taxes, so I don’t have to constantly write grants to raise money instead of actually working on solving these diseases.

Oh, by the way, Buzz.. in case you think since I work in the biomedical field, I’m not touched by this controversy... I teach students about (hush hush)... (SURPRISE) EVOLUTION! Once you get rid of all women’s studies and that other liberal detritus, I’ll be there, your next sitting duck, waiting for the barrage of verbal shot careening off my tough liberal hide as you try to figure out how to make medical research happen while wiping out all mention of evolution. (sorry, I never learned how to avoid run ons, I was too busy studying math, biology, and physics, and, oh, all that liberal stuff too).

And, just to help you out a bit, I’ll let you in on a dirty secret, but please, keep it quiet. There’s really no such thing as bacteria “evolving” antibiotic resistance. Nor HIV evolving resistance to the immune system and to drugs. Nope, those mutations ain’t evolution (schmevolution). It’s all actually a vast liberal conspiracy. See, we’ve figured out how to genetically engineer these little guys to stay one step ahead of those pesky drugs those pharma people keep coming up with. It’s hard work, but we (and the bugs) are winning due to our vigilant intelligent design efforts! (hah...for the humor impaired, this is a joke...)

For the really sarcasm impaired (like Buzz): The point is, this is not just about free intellectual pursuit of unpopular ideas the humanities. If you start attacking where does it stop? Or, maybe you are one of those people who would rather go back to a time when the average lifespan was 35 years, and people frequently died from bacterial infections due to something as small as a scratch. Great time, that was. And then those pesky microbiologists started studying the evolution of microbes and it all came crashing down, what with longer lifespans, better drugs, and all that nonsense. We gotta stop them, those crazy intellectual elite scientist evolutionists. Put them in their place. Hold them accountable to us god-fearing anti-evolution taxpayers, on a tightrope, make sure they stop their do-gooding disease-curing ways. Oops, more sarcasm. I’ll stop now, I’m sure the point is still lost on some (that means you, Buzz).

Name withheld, simply because I don’t have time for dealing with a deluge of spam (and death threats) from right wing zealots, who appear to have nothing better to do with their time than rabidly attack “liberal bias” and “evolution” rather than actually doing something useful, like, say, curing cancer.

mcgurme, at 6:05 am EDT on September 14, 2007

Honestly, I am shocked. I thought better of Michael Berube.

Goodness gracious, Prof. Ethan, you really thought I would join you in barring feminists from the classroom — in the name of academic freedom? I am shocked, shocked. After all the hours I’ve known you — I’m just disappointed. Truly disappointed.

No, actually, that’s not true. I already had a pretty strong sense that you do consider it unethical to be Teaching While Feminist. Thanks for clearing that up.

And what would I say if Caughie were a conservative? Precisely what I said in my last reply to you: I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with a situation in which students learn to practice conservative analysis and become committed to conservatism. As long as students are free not to do those things without penalty, no line has been crossed.

As for your attempts to link feminism with fascism and racism — wow.

Michael Bérubé, at 10:00 am EDT on September 14, 2007

Freedom to Indoctrinate

Caughie sees her major task in the classroom as creating students who believe exactly as she does. She believes her major task in the classroom is to create people who are versions of HERSELF, politically. You defend this as a pedagogical aim, Michael.

I do not believe for one moment that if Caughie was indoctrinating her students in conservative political beliefs in her class, with the purpose of turning them into conservative political activists, that you would be comfortable with this. This is what you defend: “I feel I am doing my job well when students become committed to feminist politics” (emphasis added). Is the proper AIM of pedagogy to PRODUCE students committed to feminist politics? To ANY politics?

Hence my point: Would you really defend a professor in a classroom who said: “I feel I am doing my job well when students become committed to conservative politics"? Who said: “I feel I am doing my job well when students become committed to Marxist politics"? Who said: “I feel I am doing my job well when students become committed to racist politics"?

I repeat: Do you really believe that a proper GOAL of classroom pedagogy is to PRODUCE students committed to feminist politics? To ANY politics?

Feminists are free to teach feminism as a mode of analysis, of course. I do the same when I teach Neorealism as a mode of analysis of international politics. This is a mode of analysis I personally believe has great validity. But my aim is NOT to produce little versions of ME, Michael, with students ending up as little Neorealists!! To that end, I offer careful and powerful critiques of Neorealism. I doubt that Caughie offers powerful critiques of feminism, since her AIM, Michael, is to produce feminist political activists. And I am certain that Kilmer does not offer such an alternative.

Prof. Ethan, at 10:35 am EDT on September 14, 2007

to return to an earlier point

Al Franken is a brilliant and witty comedian and politician, while Ann Coulter is nothing but a dangerous crank.

Bingo!, at 11:25 am EDT on September 14, 2007

Sad, Sad, Sad

Does anyone actually find disputes like the above helpful? Its a nice game of self-justification on both sides, but little comes of it. Dogmatism dogmatism dogmatism. Nowhere does anyone discuss truth. Not all issues have mutliple, equally balanced sides. Right and Left seem to have forgotten this in their rush to posture for crappy beliefs. Truth is not a matter of a vote, nor is it the pontifications of a degree holder. It comes about through hard work and research and finds its estabilsihment through the community of individuals committed to such work.I see none here.

JMK, at 6:20 pm EDT on September 14, 2007

Oops.

” .. That would have disproven my argument about conservative pressure even more thoroughly!”

“ACTA Protests UCI Law Decision”

http://www.goacta.org/press/Press%20Releases/PR9-14-07.htm

Any witty critical thinking to be added at this point, Mr. Berube?

Prof. Chemerinsky is well-known for his work, across the political spectrum.

This, as opposed to, the relentless, one-sided “down with white male America” propaganda from you-know-who (e.g., Churchill, Ayers, Zinn).

A U.S. academic who uses objective, broadband thinking. Someone call the Guinness Book of World Records.

H.J., at 6:20 pm EDT on September 14, 2007

Freedom from Franken

hmm ..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fpOSgT-osHk

Yes. Franken is not a raving, childish yahoo. He just likes to speak for 37 minutes straight (under a 10-minute time limit), then break into his unique form of Ward-o inspired cheerleading. Excellent.

Unapologically Not Tedious, at 10:15 am EDT on September 15, 2007

View from the Other End of Campus

There are many of your colleagues in academe who are less concerned with the niceties of intellectual debate than with trying to rescue people from the ravages of public education. My campus in right on the border with Mexico, in the poorest city in the U.S. (Brownsville, Texas) with what has to be the worst public education system (k-12) west of New York. Since I am merely an engineer, I suppose all of you consider me less than qualified to engage in this discussion. I advocate in my classroom. I stress the need to open student’s minds, make them think their way through life and not just accept difficulties, to be able to compose a cogent sentence in response to a question or to report on a project. Unfortunately, I am not always successful. I am always, however, happy to see students who had public education in Mexico. Their math and verbal skills are uniformly better, even in English, compared with the local product. I suppose no surprise but my greatest source of frustration is the administration. Folks who were eager to get out of the classroom and now hang on to administrative jobs until they collect enough to retire. It seems that their major objective is to make life as difficult as possible for the faculty. My department chair observes that his life is like the movie “Groundhog Day” except that he is the one training the administrators and there are so many who are incompetent that he can’t ever get ahead. Everyday, he says, he is faced with the same dilemma but with a different administrator. Thanks for being patient with me. I do care what goes on in the classroom but if I succeed, my students will be able to think their way through any topic or problem. Then it doesn’t matter if you indoctrinate or advocate unless you engage in grade retaliation. We all need to model logical and rational behavior, not emotionalism.

Dr. Wayne Wells, Tenured Professor, at 4:10 pm EDT on September 15, 2007

Yes

” .. Folks who were eager to get out of the classroom and now hang on to administrative jobs until they collect enough to retire ..”

FYI: they usually need at least three years to significantly increase their pensions. This is common with government employees.

For instance, it has been widely assumed, that is why Mike Nifong ran for Durham County prosecutor on the backs of Duke lacrosse (and support of the Duke “Gang of 88). That is, to increase his pension.

So much for “truth.” So much for “doing this for the kids.” Don’t mention this to anyone else — it is too good of a deal.

Buzz, at 6:20 am EDT on September 17, 2007

All these years of college and grad school had almost made me forget about the high school classmates who used to harass me and the other kids in the advanced math class for being good at school; I guess it’s good to see that some of them have learned to used a computer.

Seriously, though, I didn’t realize that every government agency that uses my tax money has to do what I want. Does anyone out there have the number to call about Iraq? I pay Robert Gates’ salary and he won’t even return my phone calls!

And just out of curiosity, does it matter how much money a particular organization gets from the government? I mean, the state university where I teach gets like 10% of its budget from tax dollars (no income tax=very bad public education system), so does that mean that taxpayers get to decide the content of 10% of our classes? Or does it mean that each semester, I should step aside for a week and let a member of the community teach my class? (If so, let’s make it the week before Thanksgiving so that I can go visit my family; this isn’t such a bad idea at all!)

florida, at 1:55 pm EDT on September 17, 2007

Freedom from “The Twilight Zone”

” .. I mean, the state university where I teach gets like 10% of its budget from tax dollars .. so does that mean that taxpayers get to decide the content of 10% of our classes?”

Mary, Joseph & Jesus — how many times does it have to be explained: the taxpaying public owns public academia and all related property rights? Is 2 + 2 = 5, per Ward You-Know-Who? No wonder funding is declining for public academia, with brilliance like this. As in: try reading the comment thread, first — it hurts, only for a few minutes.

It would be like complaining about ACTA and UCI Law’s firing — then finding out ACTA protested the UCI Law’s firing. Or being hired, then fired, then hired by UCI Law.

Oh. That did happen? Never mind (ht: Gilda Radner).

Buzz, at 9:00 pm EDT on September 17, 2007

Mary, Joseph & Jesus — how many times does it have to be explained: the taxpaying public owns public academia and all related property rights?

Buzz — thanks so much for taking the time to demonstrate, at such length and with such arrogance, that you have no idea what in the world you’re talking about. “All related property rights” is an especially nice touch. In future comments, I hope you will explain to the taxpaying public how they can claim the intellectual property rights to all research conducted at public universities. Because I know a few members of the public who will be very pleased to learn that they own the rights to the transistor and to magnetic resonance imaging.

Michael Bérubé, at 8:50 am EDT on September 18, 2007

Buzz never did explain how Higher Ed institutions, which receive around 10% of their funding from tax payers, are owned by the tax payers. So, if I go into a store and hand the clerk 10% of the price of that nice new plasma TV I’ve been wanting, I’m free to walk out with it?

Funding didn’t decrease because the public grew tired of higher ed, it was never there to begin with. Tuition, research grants, alumni donations, etc. have always been a part of the funding.

Buzz, seriously, if you’d gone to college, not only would you feel differently, but you’d probably have a JOB and not have the time for this ridiculous arguing.

Matthew Hamilton, at 12:15 pm EDT on September 18, 2007

It is interesting to look over these conservative responses and how little actual argument they feature as well as how many mistakes in logic and grammar.

Norman Phillips cites an episode at one university and generalizes it into an indictment of all of universities academe and commentbot follows him with the claim that this single episode “completely contradicted” Berube. We call this the hasty generalization fallacy in logic, one of the subjects I teach. I would note too Phillips’ reliance on Wikipedia, a non-peer reviewed “encyclopedia.” This is the kind of source we warn our students against using in their papers. He ought to know better.

“A large percentage of them think public academia’s work is lousy — graduates who can’t follow style books and do basic math. The taxpayers see the faculty spending more time, abusing them, their values, and their native intelligence.”

Well, “Buzz,” where is your evidence for your claim “taxpayers see” all of this incompetent work and abuse? Even if this were a correct description of the attitude of the public this merely constitutes an appeal to popularity fallacy. The popularity of a view is evidentially irrelevant to its truth or falsity. Teaching basic math, by the way, is the responsibility of primary and secondary schools.

And when one scrolls down we get one of the worst of the lot, unless he is joking, with “authoritarian populist” in his uninformed denial of evolutionary theory. Well, you might consider that evolutionary theory is considered the cornerstone of biology in American universities and research institutes as well as Canada and all of Europe and Asia. The only universities, apart from bible colleges, where evolution is in question is in the Islamic world. So, I guess this “outlandish” belief is the product of a global liberal conspiracy rather than science itself. Can you name a single Nobel Prize winner in any of the sciences who denies evolutionary theory? There are not any.

And “Bob” if you are going to post an attack on academics then learn to spell (or at least use a spell check devices.) The correct spelling is “argument” in American English and there are two “m’s” in “asymmetric.”

Citing David Horowitz as if he is a credible and objective source on academic life is a joke. Horowitz is not a university professor and never has been. In the early 90s he was hanging about academic conferences launching into diatribes against real academics such as Todd Gitlin until he was asked to leave. With the rise of Fox television, the circus barkers of talk radio and scream television and right wing advocacy groups Horowitz was transported out of deserved obscurity into the limelight. Horowitz is a familiar type, mindlessly rabid on one side of the political spectrum (Marxism in the 1960s) and then after some sort of quasi-religious conversion he became mindlessly rabid at the other end. No one who is interested in arriving at an impartial, objective, view regarding anything would take Horowitz with the slightest bit of seriousness.

Michael Hollifield, Clayton State University, at 5:05 pm EDT on September 19, 2007

Mr. No-Nothing

” .. I hope you will explain to the taxpaying public how they can claim the intellectual property rights to all research conducted at public universities ..”

Mr. Berube, then you explain why the University of California publicly identifies itself as “a university owned by the people of California?

This just proves, English teachers ought to stick to their subject area.

Buzz, at 5:00 pm EDT on July 3, 2008

Jobs Related to Freedom to Teach

or search for jobs directly.

Visiting Assistant Professor — Integrated Program in Humane Studies
Kenyon College

Kenyon College seeks a Visiting Assistant Professor for the Integrated Program of Humane Studies. see job

The Macricostas Endowed Chair in Hellenic & Modern Greek History
Western Connecticut State University

The Macricostas Endowed Chair in Hellenic & Modern Greek History Western Connecticut State University Western Connecticut ... see job

Reading Instructor
Hillsborough Community College

Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job

Communication
Keene State College

We are Creating a World of Possibilities! see job

African American Literature
Bard College

Bard is a private liberal arts college with approximately 1,800 students, located 90 miles north of New York City on the ... see job

Short Term and/or Temporary Faculty
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

Assistant or Associate Professor — Philosophy
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Assistant, or possibly Associate, Professor; beginning July 1, 2009. 2 courses per semester, undergraduate and graduate; ... see job

Faculty — Speech, Tenure Track (9 1/2 Mths), Lancaster Campus — Fall, 2009
Harrisburg Area Community College

HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job

Associate Professor, Tenured — Ancient Philosophy (Greek and Hellenistic)
University of California, Irvine

School of Humanities Department of Philosophy UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE, Irvine, CA. Associate Professor, beginning ... see job

Assistant or Associate Professor of Spanish
Gordon College

GORDON COLLEGE Department of Foreign Languages and Linguisitics position announcement Assistant or Associate Professor of ... see job