NYT article on academic freedom (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/arts/academic-freedom-harvard-universities.html?searchResultPosition=1).
QuoteThe Fight Over Academic Freedom
Amid spiraling campus speech debates, many professors are rallying in defense of a bedrock principle. But can they agree on just what it means?
Discuss.
Quote from: Langue_doc on February 20, 2024, 05:40:22 AMNYT article on academic freedom (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/arts/academic-freedom-harvard-universities.html?searchResultPosition=1).
QuoteThe Fight Over Academic Freedom
Amid spiraling campus speech debates, many professors are rallying in defense of a bedrock principle. But can they agree on just what it means?
Discuss.
Academic freedom protects the truth of an academic discipline, such as biology, history, sociology, etc.
Academic freedom protects teaching and communications of that academic discipline, trusting faculty to perform these tasks the best way for student learning.
Academic freedom protects research into a discipline to further inquiry and knowledge.
Academic freedom does not protect... bad teaching, bad behavior, and so on.
The tricky one for me is Steven Salaita. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Salaita_hiring_controversy) His opinions were in line with those in his field of American Indian Studies. He was accused by donors of being anti-Semitic and had his job offer rescinded. He tried to claim academic freedom.
IMHO he behaved poorly and unprofessionally. I'm not sure I would cover his statements as thoughtful debate and inquiry under academic freedom.
Still, I don't think that having concerns about the actions of the state of Israel makes one anti-Semitic. I really don't like donors dictating who gets hired/fired.
Salaita was fired/unhired for extra-mural speech, though. To my mind, academic freedom shouldn't cover extra-mural speech--regular free speech laws should suffice to cover that. As I see it, academic freedom protects from reprisals due to the choice of a topic for teaching and research, the conclusions drawn, interference in teaching and research, etc. when performing one's regular duties as a faculty member and university representative.
But I freely admit that my views on this are not super well informed.
What academic freedom covers and doesn't cover, according to IHE (https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/defining-academic-freedom).
And the fuller context of the quoted AAUP statment: https://www.aaup.org/programs/academic-freedom/faqs-academic-freedom (https://www.aaup.org/programs/academic-freedom/faqs-academic-freedom)
I think the AAUP's "extra-mural" phrase gives a lot of freedoms. Salaita was probably covered, but he had no political skills. If you know that you hold controversial views (and almost anything can be) then you really have to be very careful how you frame those issues when you bring them up, especially since BoT's hold all the power.
Today's environment would likely be even worse. There may be no safe way to bring up certain topics in either academia or just the general public conversation.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 20, 2024, 07:06:29 AMSalaita was fired/unhired for extra-mural speech, though. To my mind, academic freedom shouldn't cover extra-mural speech--regular free speech laws should suffice to cover that. As I see it, academic freedom protects from reprisals due to the choice of a topic for teaching and research, the conclusions drawn, interference in teaching and research, etc. when performing one's regular duties as a faculty member and university representative.
But I freely admit that my views on this are not super well informed.
I think this is significant from the Wiki article:
QuoteThe professor who was denied the job successfully litigated against the university and was awarded a settlement of $875,000,[2] while the university's Chancellor Phyllis Wise resigned.[3]
Not that litigation is always fair or accurate, but those two events say something.
Personally, this extramural speech business is what concerns me.
And why shouldn't expert extramural speech be covered? Most of us have some sort of scholarly or creative life on our own time related to our own academic expertise----articles, books, etc.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:26:06 AMPersonally, this extramural speech business is what concerns me.
And why shouldn't expert extramural speech be covered? Most of us have some sort of scholarly or creative life on our own time related to our own academic expertise----articles, books, etc.
From the article:
QuoteHow does academic freedom apply to extramural speech?
This is arguably the most controversial and most challenged aspect of academic freedom, as it does not necessarily relate to disciplinary expertise. AAUP policies call for faculty members to be free from institutional censorship or discipline when they speak or write as citizens, but they also impose special obligations. When speaking on public matters, faculty should strive to be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show appropriate respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
The problem that all of this together addresses, (or tries to), is that a person can speak publicly about something that has
nothing to do with their expertise, but if they are obnoxious about it, and
generate a lot of anger, then their association with the institution
is going to create problems for the institution.
This is not unique to academia. An employee whose actions cause harm to a business's
reputation is someone they'd be better off without in many cases.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:26:06 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on February 20, 2024, 07:06:29 AMSalaita was fired/unhired for extra-mural speech, though. To my mind, academic freedom shouldn't cover extra-mural speech--regular free speech laws should suffice to cover that. As I see it, academic freedom protects from reprisals due to the choice of a topic for teaching and research, the conclusions drawn, interference in teaching and research, etc. when performing one's regular duties as a faculty member and university representative.
But I freely admit that my views on this are not super well informed.
I think this is significant from the Wiki article:
QuoteThe professor who was denied the job successfully litigated against the university and was awarded a settlement of $875,000,[2] while the university's Chancellor Phyllis Wise resigned.[3]
Not that litigation is always fair or accurate, but those two events say something.
Personally, this extramural speech business is what concerns me.
And why shouldn't expert extramural speech be covered? Most of us have some sort of scholarly or creative life on our own time related to our own academic expertise----articles, books, etc.
To be clear, I think his unhiring was unjust. Nobody should be punished for extra-mural speech that doesn't impact their ability to do their work. It's just that it seems to me that academic freedom is the wrong lens; to my mind it falls under regular old free speech protections.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 05:57:50 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:26:06 AMPersonally, this extramural speech business is what concerns me.
And why shouldn't expert extramural speech be covered? Most of us have some sort of scholarly or creative life on our own time related to our own academic expertise----articles, books, etc.
From the article:
QuoteHow does academic freedom apply to extramural speech?
This is arguably the most controversial and most challenged aspect of academic freedom, as it does not necessarily relate to disciplinary expertise. AAUP policies call for faculty members to be free from institutional censorship or discipline when they speak or write as citizens, but they also impose special obligations. When speaking on public matters, faculty should strive to be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show appropriate respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
The problem that all of this together addresses, (or tries to), is that a person can speak publicly about something that has nothing to do with their expertise, but if they are obnoxious about it, and generate a lot of anger, then their association with the institution is going to create problems for the institution.
This is not unique to academia. An employee whose actions cause harm to a business's reputation is someone they'd be better off without in many cases.
The institution can go pound sand.
There need to be laws that protect extramural speech.
I'm sorry, but no.
If at some point your speech amounts to "our customers suck!" then you are in some hot water, as you would be with any other job. Academic can go farther than just about anybody else. But there has to be a reasonable limit.
Quote from: Ruralguy on February 26, 2024, 12:23:53 PMI'm sorry, but no.
If at some point your speech amounts to "our customers suck!" then you are in some hot water, as you would be with any other job. Academic can go farther than just about anybody else. But there has to be a reasonable limit.
I would argue that "our customers suck" is work-related speech even if it done extramurally.
"Palestine is committing genocide" if you work in a shoe store or a university is not.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 02:59:07 PMQuote from: Ruralguy on February 26, 2024, 12:23:53 PMI'm sorry, but no.
If at some point your speech amounts to "our customers suck!" then you are in some hot water, as you would be with any other job. Academic can go farther than just about anybody else. But there has to be a reasonable limit.
I would argue that "our customers suck" is work-related speech even if it done extramurally.
"Palestine is committing genocide" if you work in a shoe store or a university is not.
Crap. That is supposed to be "Israel is committing genocide." But you probably figured that out. Which maybe Israel is.
Dorms are the next frontier (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/nyregion/campus-free-speech-barnard-columbia.html) in the free speech wars.
QuoteCollege Dorm Decorations Become a Front in the Campus Free Speech Wars
Barnard College is requiring students to strip decorations from their dorm doors in the wake of protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 01, 2024, 12:41:07 PMDorms are the next frontier (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/nyregion/campus-free-speech-barnard-columbia.html) in the free speech wars.
QuoteCollege Dorm Decorations Become a Front in the Campus Free Speech Wars
Barnard College is requiring students to strip decorations from their dorm doors in the wake of protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism. Times infinity.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 01, 2024, 12:48:42 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 01, 2024, 12:41:07 PMDorms are the next frontier (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/nyregion/campus-free-speech-barnard-columbia.html) in the free speech wars.
QuoteCollege Dorm Decorations Become a Front in the Campus Free Speech Wars
Barnard College is requiring students to strip decorations from their dorm doors in the wake of protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism. Times infinity.
So criticizing actions taken on behalf of a group of people doesn't constitute bigotry against those people?
Criticism of the Israeli government certainly isn't antisemitism, unless most Israelis now are antisemites.
Nor is wearing an Israeli flag lapel pin necessarily support of the current government.
However, there are sensitive and insensitive ways of bringing up such issues.
American Jews (and other Jews across the world) are often brought up with a strong connection to Israel even when the connection to Judaism isn't particularly strong. This isn't a connection to a particular government or war. It is part of ethnic identity for many. So, though its not antisemitism to criticize Israel, it can feel that way to some. I would urge people to be sensitive to that.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 01, 2024, 01:07:40 PMCriticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism. Times infinity.
So criticizing actions taken on behalf of a group of people doesn't constitute bigotry against those people?
[/quote]
No, buddy.
There actually is a definition of bigotry.
(We covered this over on the other thread.)
Consider that if you criticize a group of people based entirely on who and what they are, not on what they actually do, you might be enacting a prejudice.
If you criticize Israel because they are a Jewish state and you don't like Jews, you are a bigot.
If you criticize Israel because you are horrified by their treatment of the Palestinians, you are a concerned world citizen.
I know you've been stung, my friend, but come on.
Gentlemen, could you take this outside?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 01, 2024, 08:59:58 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on March 01, 2024, 01:07:40 PMQuoteCriticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism. Times infinity.
So criticizing actions taken on behalf of a group of people doesn't constitute bigotry against those people?
No, buddy.
Thank you for confirming that objecting to rainbow crosswalks doesn't equate with bigotry against the people the crosswalk is supposed to be supporting.
QuoteThere actually is a definition of bigotry.
(We covered this over on the other thread.)
Consider that if you criticize a group of people based entirely on who and what they are, not on what they actually do, you might be enacting a prejudice.
Thank you for confirming that criticizing drag queen
story hour, (which is what
some drag queens
do), rather than their existence, (who they
are), is
not enacting a prejudice.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 02, 2024, 07:13:44 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on March 01, 2024, 08:59:58 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on March 01, 2024, 01:07:40 PMQuoteCriticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism. Times infinity.
So criticizing actions taken on behalf of a group of people doesn't constitute bigotry against those people?
No, buddy.
Thank you for confirming that objecting to rainbow crosswalks doesn't equate with bigotry against the people the crosswalk is supposed to be supporting.
QuoteThere actually is a definition of bigotry.
(We covered this over on the other thread.)
Consider that if you criticize a group of people based entirely on who and what they are, not on what they actually do, you might be enacting a prejudice.
Thank you for confirming that criticizing drag queen story hour, (which is what some drag queens do), rather than their existence, (who they are), is not enacting a prejudice.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
Although I pretty sure that you are still not getting it...
In fact, nope, all you are doing is looking for a way to hang on to your prejudices and hate.
Such a shame.
Unless!!! Your objection is the morality of "Story Hour."
Is that it, Marshwanderer? Do you see a moral objection to story hour if a Catholic priest does one?
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 02, 2024, 06:26:46 AMGentlemen, could you take this outside?
Sorry, man. Just responding.
To continue the discussion of "hate" and "prejudice" please go here:
https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=3757.0