History Adjunct Disciplined For Raising Questions About Slavery

[downer]

Apparently a college investigation found a history adjunct guilty of inappropriately raising the question of whether slavery had good effects. It's a bit concerning since I have raised similar questions in my classes. I wonder what the full story is.

From the right wing College Fix
https://www.thecollegefix.com/professor-found-guilty-of-harassment-for-asking-students-if-global-trade-has-been-good-overall/

From The Fire, which declares itself to be nonpartisan:
https://www.thefire.org/teaching-history-not-permitted-st-johns-bulldozes-academic-freedom-punishes-professor-for-posing-question-about-columbian-exchange/

From a local newspaper
St. John's University investigating professor for suggesting there was 'good' to come from slavery
https://qns.com/2020/09/exclusive-st-johns-university-investigating-professor-for-suggesting-there-was-good-to-come-from-slavery/

[dismalist]

Yeah, I noticed this too.

In economics the is something called Cost-Benefit Analysis, which is predicated on a dollar being a dollar, no matter who has it. At least implicitly, this is what the instructor was using as an analytical device. And if we are not allowed to use it, the rest of society is in deep trouble.

Philosophically, this is pure utilitarianism applied to the currently living. We see right here that we might not want to be pure utilitarians! [I for one am a utilitarian if there is insurance against bad outcomes, like being born a slave, something we can all agree upon.]

But to stop discussion? No way. The students are merely replicating the Salem Witchcraft Trials.

[mahagonny]

But to stop discussion? No way. The students are merely replicating the Salem Witchcraft Trials.

And where do the students get these loopy ideas of what things we should be allowed to think about and which ones we are not? From loopy academics who get the prestigious teaching jobs.

[Caracal]

As teaching and historical thinking, I'm pretty unimpressed. The question of "do the positives outweigh the negatives" strikes is pretty incoherent. Whose positives? Whose negatives? What possible metric could measure something like that? I find the question offensive in its assumptions and implicit idea about which people matter.

That said, I do think this is an infringement of academic freedom. If I was a chair and I observed a class like this, I might have very serious questions about whether this was someone who was really a competent teacher. But, that doesn't merit an investigation and suspension, unless there's more to the story.

[mahagonny]

As teaching and historical thinking, I'm pretty unimpressed. The question of "do the positives outweigh the negatives" strikes is pretty incoherent. Whose positives? Whose negatives? What possible metric could measure something like that? I find the question offensive in its assumptions and implicit idea about which people matter.

That said, I do think this is an infringement of academic freedom. If I was a chair and I observed a class like this, I might have very serious questions about whether this was someone who was really a competent teacher. But, that doesn't merit an investigation and suspension, unless there's more to the story.

Well then the answer can certainly be no, but that is not to say there have been no positives. For example if black Americans today are having a higher standard of living or better education and more freedom than what is typical in the region where their ancestors lived.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't think I have enough information about the context surrounding the question.

I can certainly imagine contexts in which it's entirely appropriate, such as when we're talking from a consequentialist perspective and looking to the long-term, where the past makes the present possible (although of course we have to deal with the temptation to prioritize the way things are at present as 'better' than some imaginary alternative). If you think that the world today is vastly better off than the way it was four hundred years ago, for example, then you could argue that it was "worth it", in the end. The claim itself is uninteresting, but the process of reasoning is perhaps a worthwhile classroom exercise.

Alternately, I can imagine posing such a question to try to figure out why our forebears decided it was a good idea to do such a vile thing to other people. If the economic benefits were marginal, for instance, and we couldn't identify any other substantive benefit, then we'd really have to wonder what was wrong with them (I mean, I have to wonder that anyway, but even more so in that case). Posing the question to understand motivations seems like a fine exercise.

I can also imagine contexts where I find it repugnant but appropriate, such as in a discussion of theodicy. If you're going to thump the god-book around, you may as well know what you're committed to.

But... what exactly were they learning and talking about (beyond the vague "Columbian exchange!!111"), and what was the pedagogical purpose in asking the question? It's just not clear to me from those articles.

[ciao_yall]

I don't think I have enough information about the context surrounding the question.

I can certainly imagine contexts in which it's entirely appropriate, such as when we're talking from a consequentialist perspective and looking to the long-term, where the past makes the present possible (although of course we have to deal with the temptation to prioritize the way things are at present as 'better' than some imaginary alternative). If you think that the world today is vastly better off than the way it was four hundred years ago, for example, then you could argue that it was "worth it", in the end. The claim itself is uninteresting, but the process of reasoning is perhaps a worthwhile classroom exercise.

Alternately, I can imagine posing such a question to try to figure out why our forebears decided it was a good idea to do such a vile thing to other people. If the economic benefits were marginal, for instance, and we couldn't identify any other substantive benefit, then we'd really have to wonder what was wrong with them (I mean, I have to wonder that anyway, but even more so in that case). Posing the question to understand motivations seems like a fine exercise.

I can also imagine contexts where I find it repugnant but appropriate, such as in a discussion of theodicy. If you're going to thump the god-book around, you may as well know what you're committed to.

But... what exactly were they learning and talking about (beyond the vague "Columbian exchange!!111"), and what was the pedagogical purpose in asking the question? It's just not clear to me from those articles.

You mean, were Black people in the 1800's better off as slaves in America or free in Africa?

With, or without, colonial rule and exploitation?

Are Black people today better off in America than their cousins in Africa?

With, or without, the resulting effects of colonial rule and exploitation?

[mahagonny]

If you go by the theory that is circulating today, namely that white people have always been racist dominators and will always intend to be unless we are deliberately stopped, then the current era of enlightenment would have been brought on by slavery in the USA. So now we have Yelp, with tremendous power, telling you which companies are racist, which would be a good thing. So today's woeness could only have happened because of the horrors that preceeded it. I happen to think it's a bad thing because I don't trust those people and in any case am not looking for a self-appointed committee to help me process my experience of the world. But I think I'm swimming against the tide.
article: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/520349-yelp-will-start-labeling-businesses-that-are

[smallcleanrat]

The first article downer posted says the professor showed a lecture slide which included the question, "Do the positives justify the negatives?"

It wasn't clear to me whether the quote was conveyed by the professor or by the angry students (in which case it might be a misquote).

If the quote is accurate, I can see how it might be jarring.

Using the word "justify" seems unnecessary to start a discussion on the "positives" vs. "negatives" (however those were defined) of slavery. Unless, perhaps, discussions of ethics were a part of the course? I don't know; not my field.

Reminds me a bit of courses I've taken which include discussion of important/influential discoveries in medicine which involved experiments that would never pass today's ethical standards. But I can only ever recall this being conveyed factually; not questioning whether the negatives "justified" the positives. That's not a factual question so much as a values judgment.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't think I have enough information about the context surrounding the question.

I can certainly imagine contexts in which it's entirely appropriate, such as when we're talking from a consequentialist perspective and looking to the long-term, where the past makes the present possible (although of course we have to deal with the temptation to prioritize the way things are at present as 'better' than some imaginary alternative). If you think that the world today is vastly better off than the way it was four hundred years ago, for example, then you could argue that it was "worth it", in the end. The claim itself is uninteresting, but the process of reasoning is perhaps a worthwhile classroom exercise.

Alternately, I can imagine posing such a question to try to figure out why our forebears decided it was a good idea to do such a vile thing to other people. If the economic benefits were marginal, for instance, and we couldn't identify any other substantive benefit, then we'd really have to wonder what was wrong with them (I mean, I have to wonder that anyway, but even more so in that case). Posing the question to understand motivations seems like a fine exercise.

I can also imagine contexts where I find it repugnant but appropriate, such as in a discussion of theodicy. If you're going to thump the god-book around, you may as well know what you're committed to.

But... what exactly were they learning and talking about (beyond the vague "Columbian exchange!!111"), and what was the pedagogical purpose in asking the question? It's just not clear to me from those articles.

You mean, were Black people in the 1800's better off as slaves in America or free in Africa?

With, or without, colonial rule and exploitation?

Are Black people today better off in America than their cousins in Africa?

With, or without, the resulting effects of colonial rule and exploitation?

Nope, not at all what I had in mind.

[ciao_yall]

The first article downer posted says the professor showed a lecture slide which included the question, "Do the positives justify the negatives?"

It wasn't clear to me whether the quote was conveyed by the professor or by the angry students (in which case it might be a misquote).

If the quote is accurate, I can see how it might be jarring.

Using the word "justify" seems unnecessary to start a discussion on the "positives" vs. "negatives" (however those were defined) of slavery. Unless, perhaps, discussions of ethics were a part of the course? I don't know; not my field.

Reminds me a bit of courses I've taken which include discussion of important/influential discoveries in medicine which involved experiments that would never pass today's ethical standards. But I can only ever recall this being conveyed factually; not questioning whether the negatives "justified" the positives. That's not a factual question so much as a values judgment.

The principle of social justice is that positives and negatives are distributed equitably.

So, if the positives went to one group, and the negatives went to another group, even if the net for the overall society was "positive" then it still is not socially just.

[dismalist]

The principle of social justice is that positives and negatives are distributed equitably.

So, if the positives went to one group, and the negatives went to another group, even if the net for the overall society was "positive" then it still is not socially just.

Thus equality of outcome is asserted to be socially just. Why?

[Caracal]

Alternately, I can imagine posing such a question to try to figure out why our forebears decided it was a good idea to do such a vile thing to other people. If the economic benefits were marginal, for instance, and we couldn't identify any other substantive benefit, then we'd really have to wonder what was wrong with them (I mean, I have to wonder that anyway, but even more so in that case). Posing the question to understand motivations seems like a fine exercise.

I have students read pro slavery arguments all the time. Reading careful, rigorous arguments that make a case for something they find repugnant is useful. I also talk about pro slavery ideology in many of my classes. You can't, for example, really understand secession, without understanding the pro slavery ideology that the Confederacy was built on.

Understanding why some people thought racial slavery was an ideal system is historically important, ungrounded speculation about whether the benefits outweighed the costs to the world in general is pretty useless.

The economic benefits of slavery to slaveholders were not marginal. If you took a list of the wealthiest people in America in 1860, probably the majority of people on that list would be people with lots of their capital invested in enslaved labor. Growing rice or cotton with slave labor could be incredibly profitable. Slave trading within the United States was also a very lucrative business. By one estimate slave traders in the middle of the 19th century were making profits of 20-30 percent on average.

[downer]

I'd have thought that any course that addresses slavery has to look at pro-slavery arguments. Similarly, any course that looks at sexism and racism would look at justifications of sexism and racism. Hopefully, the result will be to show how weak the justifications are, as well as to illuminate the way that people rationalize their discrimination.

In the ancient world, slavery was taken as such a given that it was very rare to question it or argue for it. It seems that slaves, far from wanting to abolish slavery, hoped to own slaves themselves at some point. Aristotle was remarkable for providing an argument for slavery, so his argument for it gets a lot of attention.

There are important questions about how to address these issues in a classroom, and it is possible to do it in an insenstive or unnecessarily provocative style. On the other hand, with many classes, it is very tempting to be provocative since so often students tend to be rather sleepy and uncurious.

The professor in this case was a grad student, I believe. New teachers may be especially vulnerable to problems in framing discussion.

[spork]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZkTnJnLR0&ab_channel=SF1971