Cross-posted from
Free Exchange on Campus.
I have often heard academics bemoan the fact that the general public doesn't understand what it is they do and why academic freedom is so important to that work. So we should be happy to see it discussed often these days in books, TV and newspapers, right? Er, maybe. It is hard to argue against the benefits of having someone like Stanley Fish writing about these issues in the New York Times as he did earlier this week here.
Okay, I disagree with Fish when he tries to lure us into believing that the key to achieving academic freedom is for faculty members to be the equivalent of some impartial, robotic oracle who is able to "separate yourself from your partisan identity" in the classroom. But the fact that his commentary generates a thoughtful debate is important and educational. On the other hand, a debate in the public arena about a complex topic like academic freedom is surely destined for some trouble.
For example, Inside Higher Ed
reported yesterday that a group of faculty--many who were unfairly
targeted by David Horowitz--have come together to create a petition (now with 254 signatures) decrying the proceedings that resulted in a recommendation to fire Ward Churchill. The title of the article? "Should Academic Left Defend Churchill?" Later that day, PhiBetaCons puts up a post
claiming "Left-wing professors start a petition." The blogosphere
heats up and off we go.
Unfortunately, a debate ostensibly about academic freedom is co-opted. Now, it is not a question about whether or not an academic's public speech and the politicized publicity that followed should lead to a professional inquiry. It isn't about whether an academic committee's decision is correct and justified. It is about right and left--right and wrong. Everyone is forced to either take a side, or remain silent (and of course that silence is interpreted as taking a side as well). Everyone is pre-positioned by the terms of the debate and as a result the debate itself is impoverished. More to the point, we are reduced, not to a rich academic debate about principles and process, but rather a public/political debate where positions must be simple, identifiable and certainly not complicated or contradictory. What to do?
Clearly the answer cannot be to avoid these debates and the risk of being ideologically pigeon-holed. Certainly that would be a silly and hypocritical position for those of us here at Free Exchange to take. At the same time, we need to know that each time we engage a Horowitz or Neal or Coulter or Balch, we validate their argument for some readers.. But still, we must engage.
The key is to not let the argument get reduced to the terms that Horowitz et al aim for. Academic freedom is a messy business that involves letting some folks say things that others are uncomfortable with, find odd or unworthy of attention, or just simply disagree with. But as with free speech in general, we decide that such protections are fundamental to our system of education and worth the risk that occasionally the system will fail. As a result, it is a system worth debating and defending, because that is what keeps it strong.