The Death of Academic Freedom

The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident…To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation…Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. (Chief Justice Warren in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250).

Having confused the meaning of academic freedom, David Horowitz and the organization Students for Academic Freedom are attempting to impose a new, bastardized version of freedom on American universities. They’ve written an Academic Bill of Rights, a list of principles and procedures that universities should follow so as not to restrict academic freedom. I’ve pasted it below, along with my concerns about the document.

Academic Bill of Rights
(rebutted by the blogger, who has the intellect and knowledge to do so, thanks to the education she received at a public university)

1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

This statement smacks of hypocrisy. It says that no faculty should be hired or fired on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs, but it also says that there should be a plurality of methodologies and perspectives in the humanities, social sciences, and the arts. This sounds great, right? Who could argue with the importance of having more than one perspective?

I could argue with that. In order make sure that plurality exists, a university would have to hire and fire faculty members on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. If people are hired solely on the basis of their competence and knowledge, it’s entirely possible that there won’t be a plurality of perspectives. In order to have that plurality, the university would have to keep track of potential faculty members’ beliefs and hire accordingly. This is not freedom. This is restriction based on political or religious beliefs.

2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

Again, that refutes the above statement made about maintaining plurality.

3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

This seems reasonable.

4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

It seems to me that academic freedom would be the freedom of professors to choose which books they will use in their classes. If students wish to read about dissenting sources and viewpoints, they have the freedom to do so. Requiring professors to provide dissenting viewpoints is the opposite of academic freedom.

5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

I have yet to meet any professor who uses his or her courses for the purpose of indoctrination rather than teaching. I believe that what some people feel is indoctrination is simply someone teaching a subject from a viewpoint that they disagree with and they feel that the professor is forcing his or her viewpoint on the students.

And, as in number 4, the first part of the statement does not advocate freedom. Requiring faculty to teach students certain things is, again, the opposite of academic freedom. Freedom is when professors teach what they choose to teach.

6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

If, by requiring pluralism, certain student activities and speakers are banned, then this is not freedom. Freedom would allow for any activity or speaker, regardless of the viewpoint and regardless of whether all viewpoints are presented.

7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

This is essentially what I wrote above, and it contradicts number 6. Speakers should not be obstructed, but this means that all speakers should be allowed, even if all viewpoints aren’t presented. And, of course, civil discourse is always necessary for education to occur.

8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry

I’m not sure what this is advocating. Certainly, the writer(s) of this statement are aware that faculty members are researchers, many of who disagree with their fellow researchers. It would be absurd to suggest that these people maintain neutrality on questions within their fields of inquiry. Only by asking questions does one learn something. Research consists of someone asking a question and then seeking the answer. If one is completely neutral about something, there is no question, and no research needs to be done.