Most Speak at Their Own Risk: What Academic Freedom?

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
February 10, 2005

Most Speak at Their Own Risk
What Academic Freedom?
By DAVE LINDORFF

Amid all the controversy over the observations of University of Colorado professor and leftist Indian political activist Ward Churchill concerning the military justifiability of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, it's easy to overlook the fact that freedom of academic expression on American university campuses is already virtually dead.

Churchill, who holds a tenured position at his university, is actually in an unusually strong position. With his tenure, the only way that the lynch mob out to fire him can get rid of him without facing a huge damage suit in court for breach of contract would be to prove a case of moral turpitude or dereliction of teaching duties or something equally heinous.

But for many teachers on American campuses--indeed for most teachers on some campuses and all at some--tenure is a thing of the past. Increasingly, universities large and small, famous and unknown, are turning to contract hires to do the teaching. These virtual professors are only offered "folding chairs" that carry a contract--one year, two years, three years, or maybe five years. At that point, they have to be renewed. They cannot be considered for tenure. Many other teachers are simply adjuncts, hired on a year-to-year or semester-to-semester basis to teach one or two classes. They have no contract at all to protect them.

Clearly, a person who has no job security has no freedom of expression. Such professors and adjuncts are no better off than the worker in a Wal-Mart or a General Electric factory--which means they have no more freedom of speech than a 12th century serf. They speak out at their own risk. If any adjunct or contract-hire teachers spoke out politically the way Churchill did and roused the wrath of the unwashed masses and the loofahed and lathered Bill O'Reilly, they'd be gone in a flash--if not the next day, then certainly at the end of the term.

With the bloodhounds of the right getting into full McCarthy lynching mode these days, including organized groups of student yahoos who monitor their teachers' lectures and backed by a phalanx of right-wing media mouths ready to amplify any complaint about non-mainstream viewpoints expressed by teachers in or outside the classroom, the fight for academic freedom has become more than academic. Yet instead of working to strengthen this important and historic tradition not just of tenure but of the very culture of free expression on campus, administrators are caving in to political pressure and undermining both.

Ward Churchill is a fighter, and will go down slugging. Most academics, I'm afraid, will just shut up and become conventional thinkers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff02102005.html

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. .

[Maddy McCall]

2. Tenure offers no protection in many universities.

Look at recent headlines on tenured professors who have been fired for doing something as mundane as cricizing the college administration.

[bloom]

3. "Most academics... will just shut up and become conventional thinkers. "

Or they'll have to post on anonymous message boards.

[Igel]

4. Academic freedom is relative.

It's what you demand from those above you, and seldom grant to those below you.

Tenure committees don't. Faculty review committees don't. Faculty seldom grant it to their grad students, or TAs to their undergrads. In hard sciences, it's less frequently an issue; in humanities and social sciences, it's a big issue.

Academic freedom doesn't usually cover intentionally inflammatory speech. Offensive speech, sometimes. If it's part of a reasoned argument. Churchill's language wasn't conducive to reasoned argumentation. It was polemical; not always bad, but no longer really scholarship.

Most universities have a decorum clause: you represent the university, you behave yourself. Performers and producers of creative works get more leeway than "scholars"; there's a difference. Churchill wasn't hired as a performer.

He's in Ethnic Studies, and studies oppression. His claim was 9/11 was a response to oppression, in which he's somewhat of an expert. Not a leap to think he was acting in a professional capacity. He probably got the gig because of his professional writings. Had he been a chemist or even an English major, it would have been harder to argue that he didn't represent the university. And I know I could make the case without using inflammatory language.

Should he be chucked? Not my call; I don't know the terms of his contract and standards of conduct. But even if he's not, I'd expect him to be encouraged to move on.

[Itsthetruth]

5. Professor Shouldn't Have Free Speech?

"Academic freedom doesn't usually cover intentionally inflammatory speech. Offensive speech, sometimes. It was polemical; not always bad, but no longer really scholarship.

Most universities have a decorum clause: you represent the university, you behave yourself."

And who decides what is "offensive" or God forbid "inflammatory" speech by a teacher? I'm sure that right-wingers consider any comments by professors against George Bush's foreign and domestic policies to be dangerous, inflammatory, un-American and outright treason!

So professors who don't like government policy should just shut up, behave themselves and restrict their public comments to some undefined "scholarly speech" test if they want to keep their jobs?
I have to wonder what "neutral" person or government board will prepare and enforce that test.

Sorry. Couldn't disagree more with you on that. I believe in academic freedom. In fact, I believe people should have the right of free speech, even professors, without having to worry about being fired from their jobs because they anger some right-wingers or government officials. I hope that if some professor expresses that subversive thought they aren't fired!

[forgethell]

8. What about right-wing

students who are arrested or otherwise disciplined by their schools for politically incorrect speech? Can we demand free speech for ourselves without granting it to others.?


What about alumni donors? Do their free speech rights include the right to tell the university that they will no longer support them as long as Churchill, or others like him, or employed? Or should they just cease contributing without ever offering a reason why? Or should they shut up and keep the money flowing?

Free speech works both ways. But then so do donations. Why don't we threaten to stop donating to CU if they let him go??

[Itsthetruth]

11. Of Course Not

Of course not and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that.

Donors are and should be free to speak on any issue they like and to donate or not donate to any cause. Are donors being fired? But, that has nothing to do with free speech on campuses.

[forgethell]

14. "...that has nothing to do with free speech on campuses." ????

Why else do you think he would be in trouble? Money talks. Donors shut the flow; Churchill's gotta go.

[Igel]

10. Yes, they should have free speech. When they don't give it up.

Content can be offensive and be protected. But most people are wise enough to not make content that's potentially offensive into rhetoric that is needlessly offensive, and draws attention away from the argumentation and reasoning that is usually a professor's stock in trade.

I know a professor who ran afoul of the code of conduct where he taught. He gleefully dwelled on some truly offensive folklore. The material itself he was allowed to cover in depth, even though it was a fraction of the overall corpus, and was seriously misogynistic: mutilation, rape, etc. But the glee and the offensive way in which he presented it intimidated the women in the class, in spite of the fact he never once uttered a misogynistic opinion of his own. The provost told the women not to attend his class, but to take the final. Then he had security guards escort the prof from the final exam as he was about to hand out the final, and then administered a different final. He claimed academic freedom and freedom of speech; the administration pointed to the faculty code of conduct. He had promised to keep his speech within the limits he voluntarily accepted. If not for being off his meds, his ass would have been escorted off campus, publications and reputation notwithstanding; and his probation called for being fired if he went off his meds again (if he was caught, that is).

Most schools have codes of conduct that professors agree to when they're hired. *If* Churchill's school has a code of conduct, and *if* his lecture ran afoul of it, I don't see why he or anybody else should think him above it. I'd expect him to be a man of his word. He wanted to provoke and shock, and used inflammatory speech; he got what he wanted. I'm not sure that I'd say his talk ran afoul of the code of conduct where I attended grad school. But it's close, and different schools have different codes of conduct (and methods of enforcement).

I doubt he'll have his tenure revoked; using having people call for his dismissal is *also* free speech, and puts the professor on notice that he's pushing the envelope and should stop pushing quite so hard. I heard he was removed as chair of his dept.; from what I understand, unlike in most depts., in ethnic studies being chair is some sort of perk or somehow prestigious, but a privilege that's not protected. I suspect that'll be the end of any official censure.

Again: The content of his talk, I think, is protected. But content and mode of presentation are two different things.

[Itsthetruth]

13. Say Again Please

So are you for or against academic freedom and free speech for teachers or not? It seems you're for it it a very limited way provided it doesn't cross unspecified "free speech" guidelines by administrators. I don't particularly favor free speech that is restricted by the government or university bureaucrats. Restricted free speech (writings and public comments) is not free speech at all.

Now the professor being targeted did not advocate or engage in acts of terrorism. If he did, you might have a case.

[Igel]

15. I think professors have freedom of speech, but they agree to limit

themselves like any other employee does. At Wendy's you don't insult the customer. Where I worked last summer we could call the client a jerk as long as he didn't hear, but we didn't dare say that the manager was a jerk without risking being canned.

A professor doesn't commit plagiarism, lie about sources, or bring great disrepute on his home institution through his speech and behavior. But the later is weakly enforced (hell, sometimes the first two are weakly enforced). I don't believe Churchill will have his tenure revoked. Faculty close ranks around their own.

But depending on the details of the code of faculty conduct he's likely to have his hand slapped. Maybe a hard slap.

There is no penalty-free version of freedom of speech. I believe somebody can say damned well whatever he wants, Malcolm X to a Grand Wizard, but there are various costs to pay if you offend enough or the wrong people.

The limitations on academic freedom are based on money: tenure committees, grantors, that kind of thing. Oh, and a certain kind of discipline-specific political correctness. Some things you just don't study if you want to be taken seriously. Research what you want, but there might be costs.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

6. And you also have freepers putting you on their 'Enemies' List

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2607261

and they try to ruin your career...

[forgethell]

7. I have no

freedom of expression, either. There's lot's of things my boss won't let me say, at least on company property. Damn Nazis!! They think just because the donations might dry up they can censor speech. Crap!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. "Folding chairs!"

That's a wonderful expression to describe the state of academia today. after being denied tenure in a position that I'd worked myself to exhaustion for, I looked around and saw only short-term jobs available. Rather than become an "academic Gypsy," moving across the country every year or two, I got out of college teaching.

[EFerrari]

12. I have no perspective on this. Cal Alumna.

The day Rushti (sp?)went underground, he was scheduled to speak to one of my seminars.

I don't know about other departments, but the English department was wonderful. You could hold and voice your views, even if they weren't blessed by the Chair.