Academic Freedom and Cancel Culture

[marshwiggle]

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

I can't see how they could actually test students on this in a *physics course. So I'm not sure how students would have to pretend to agree with it in order to succeed in the course.


(*In a way that would in any way be actually be anything about physics. I can have a test question asking students to give the name of my dog, but that doesn't make it a legitimate part of the course content, and they'd have grounds for a grade appeal if I penalized them for getting it "wrong".)

[mahagonny]

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

I can't see how they could actually test students on this in a *physics course. So I'm not sure how students would have to pretend to agree with it in order to succeed in the course.


(*In a way that would in any way be actually be anything about physics. I can have a test question asking students to give the name of my dog, but that doesn't make it a legitimate part of the course content, and they'd have grounds for a grade appeal if I penalized them for getting it "wrong".)

Because they think your grading could be influenced by whether or not you are taking their side in the culture war in the USA.  Which has become quite intense, with social media, late night TV talk shows, sports, cable news, etc.
They would be wrong, hopefully, but it takes a leap of faith to be certain that the professor is totally trustworthy.

[marshwiggle]

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

I can't see how they could actually test students on this in a *physics course. So I'm not sure how students would have to pretend to agree with it in order to succeed in the course.


(*In a way that would in any way be actually be anything about physics. I can have a test question asking students to give the name of my dog, but that doesn't make it a legitimate part of the course content, and they'd have grounds for a grade appeal if I penalized them for getting it "wrong".)

Because they think your grading could be influenced by whether or not you are taking their side in the culture war in the USA.  Which has become quite intense, with social media, late night TV talk shows, sports, cable news, etc.
They would be wrong, hopefully, but it takes a leap of faith to be certain that the professor is totally trustworthy.

Sure, but when, exactly would students express that if it weren't on a test or assignment? Unless the class were really small, most people wouldn't participate in most class discussions, so simply not participating in a class discussion about the topic wouldn't "out" anyone. If a prof teaching French was a Flat Earther, unless students were graded on some activity related to the shape of the earth, it's not clear how they would need to identify themselves as disagreeing with the prof.

So the prof acting in a biased manner based on students' beliefs is quite possible, but how the prof would determine students' beliefs without some explicit course requirement isn't obvious to me. (Anyone have a high school teacher who was a rabid fan of some sports team that you didn't like? How hard was it to just keep that to yourself in that class?)

[mahagonny]

Sure, but when, exactly would students express that if it weren't on a test or assignment? Unless the class were really small, most people wouldn't participate in most class discussions, so simply not participating in a class discussion about the topic wouldn't "out" anyone. If a prof teaching French was a Flat Earther, unless students were graded on some activity related to the shape of the earth, it's not clear how they would need to identify themselves as disagreeing with the prof.

So the prof acting in a biased manner based on students' beliefs is quite possible, but how the prof would determine students' beliefs without some explicit course requirement isn't obvious to me. (Anyone have a high school teacher who was a rabid fan of some sports team that you didn't like? How hard was it to just keep that to yourself in that class?)

I can envision that. Yes, you might be one who makes up his mind that he doesn't have to be part of the 'in' crowd. You just complete your work well, kind of come in under the radar, get through it. Many conservative college students today censor themselves a bit, or a lot, socially, or in class. I wouldn't go broadcasting that I am pro-life, for example.

[jimbogumbo]

I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

[dismalist]

I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

[mahagonny]

I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

[dismalist]

I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

Depends on who pays! :-)

[jimbogumbo]

I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

Depends on who pays! :-)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I want the hypothetical math prof fired, by the college.

[dismalist]

I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

Depends on who pays! :-)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I want the hypothetical math prof fired, by the college.

Excellent choice! And if not, students, or their parents could decide to not attend. The State is usually a bad last resort unless there are many.

Cheers.

[Caracal]

I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

That does seem like the weird part. If this was a history of science course, or philosophy of science course, there would be nothing wrong with exploring ideas about the boundaries of science and how scientists and scientific culture define legitimacy. If it's just some weird dude talking about how intelligent design makes sense when he's supposed to be teaching intro physics, that really doesn't work.

To give a parallel, I teach a fair amount about conspiracy theories as a historian. It is hard to try to understand something if you don't take it seriously. "Those guys are nut jobs" isn't a historical argument. I try to get students to think about why particular conspiracy theories might appeal to some people at particular times. I sometimes point out why a conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense, but the point is not to try to debunk the theories. Heck, sometimes a conspiracy theory is true, or at least has an element of truth to it.

Unless I'm missing something, what these professors were doing seems more akin to me spending class time talking about how steel doesn't melt.

[dismalist]

Unless I'm missing something, what these professors were doing seems more akin to me spending class time talking about how steel doesn't melt.

And if so, they will fail. No problem.

[Wahoo Redux]

From IHE:

Accusations Fly Against Albion College President

[marshwiggle]

From IHE:

Accusations Fly Against Albion College President

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

[ciao_yall]

From the article...

... allegations that he profited from campus construction projects...

That could be something, but no more mention of it in the article.

... and kept two goats on campus against city law.

There is more about the goats than the alleged graft.

Priorities, people?