"Sometimes Diversity Trumps Academic Freedom" article at CHE

[financeguy]

Someone is saying the quiet part out loud:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/sometimes-diversity-trumps-academic-freedom

What I find outrageous about this article is not what the author has said. We all know this is what everyone on the DEI train thinks already. Few simply pretend these two goals can happily coexist. My problem with Prof. Hawkins statements is that she is simply referred to as a "Vice Dean of Law and Professor" at Rutgers Law.

True, but she also has a past as an attorney focusing on diversity issues at a previous firm and indicates a current private practice doing the same as indicated on her public Rutgers CV. One more person with a financial interest in this issue.

[ciao_yall]

This article was annoying.

Some recent, high-profile examples reveal the nature of these conflicts. Consider, for example, a professor who refused to use a student's preferred pronouns, or another who repeatedly requested a student use an Anglicized name in class, or another who instructed international students to speak English while on campus. Some recent, high-profile examples reveal the nature of these conflicts. Consider, for example, a professor who refused to use a student's preferred pronouns, or another who repeatedly requested a student use an Anglicized name in class, or another who instructed international students to speak English while on campus.

None of these are academic freedom, which is to protect the truth and inquiry of a discipline. Not the right to be a jerk.

In cases such as these, professors commonly defend their actions as protected, sometimes even well-intentioned, speech. A more common example are the numerous instances when a professor has defended the right to use racial epithets or other content considered highly offensive and demeaning to some students in the classroom. Intentions notwithstanding, the impact of this speech on students matters. In cases such as these, professors commonly defend their actions as protected, sometimes even well-intentioned, speech. A more common example are the numerous instances when a professor has defended the right to use racial epithets or other content considered highly offensive and demeaning to some students in the classroom. Intentions notwithstanding, the impact of this speech on students matters.

Being a jerk is not free speech (times infinity.)

To respond, another clip from the article...

Equally important, academic administrators also have an obligation to protect members of the community from discrimination and harassment on the basis of protected characteristics, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. In discharging these responsibilities, some people's right to express themselves cannot come at the expense of other people's right to dignity, safety, and equal participation in the academic community. Equally important, academic administrators also have an obligation to protect members of the community from discrimination and harassment on the basis of protected characteristics, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. In discharging these responsibilities, some people's right to express themselves cannot come at the expense of other people's right to dignity, safety, and equal participation in the academic community.

Can someone find a legitimate example of academic freedom conflicting with DEI? I mean, some groups might be more likely to believe in Creationism than evolution. There might be multiple interpretations of historic facts (and I'm not elevating Holocaust deniers to that level.)

[marshwiggle]

Can someone find a legitimate example of academic freedom conflicting with DEI? I mean, some groups might be more likely to believe in Creationism than evolution. There might be multiple interpretations of historic facts (and I'm not elevating Holocaust deniers to that level.)

Even with those it would be hard to see how essentially forbidding those ideas to be spoken of would somehow be required for DEI. (And I'll even include Holocaust denial, as far as discussing the fact that it exists should be a legitimate academic endeavour.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, I think Hawkins is stating the obvious in a lot of this.  When I taught I tried to find things that would engage difficult problems but which would not offend or ostracize people----I did this in an attempt to be a nice human, not because of academic freedom. 

However, when the author writes----

Balancing academic freedom with academic responsibility will sometimes require harmful and offensive speech to be condemned, especially when it serves no legitimate educational purpose.

----she makes the puppy-dog argument.*  OF COURSE if we use a racial slur in the classroom it must have a legitimate educational purpose.  Duh. 

But the problem is that people have become hysterical.  Some are taking offense at things like euphemisms for racial slurs n a law school exam, murals depicting the fight against slavery, and Medieval images of the Prophet.  And students are demanding people's reputations and livelihoods be ruined and that there is to be no discussion of the issue at hand.  I find it ironic that people who cannot withstand a wall mural accuse other people of "white fragility" or an attempt to discuss the problem is met with charges of "racism."

The same can be true of faculty.  While not academic freedom per se, remember when I police officer followed protocol and refused to let a person of color into his locked office without I.D.?

* A "puppy-dog" argument is an argument that really isn't an argument----an argument that everyone will automatically agree upon (unless they are psychos); ex. "Everyone should be nice to puppies."  That comes from my high school journalism teacher, may he rest in peace.

[marshwiggle]

Well, I think Hawkins is stating the obvious in a lot of this.  When I taught I tried to find things that would engage difficult problems but which would not offend or ostracize people----I did this in an attempt to be a nice human, not because of academic freedom. 

However, when the author writes----

Balancing academic freedom with academic responsibility will sometimes require harmful and offensive speech to be condemned, especially when it serves no legitimate educational purpose.

----she makes the puppy-dog argument.*  OF COURSE if we use a racial slur in the classroom it must have a legitimate educational purpose.  Duh. 

* A "puppy-dog" argument is an argument that really isn't an argument----an argument that everyone will automatically agree upon (unless they are psychos); ex. "Everyone should be nice to puppies."  That comes from my high school journalism teacher, may he rest in peace.

An interesting possibility occurs. In a generation or so, in principle the total prohibition on the use of "the n-word" could quite conceivably result in a generation who has no idea what "then-word" actually was. They could then, in total innocence, come across it in some hitherto forbidden text, and read it and begin using it with no idea that it was the actual word that "the n-word" was referring to. (That seems like some riff on a plot from a sci-fi story, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Think of all of the student misquotations in another thread.)

[financeguy]

I guess I'm more concerned with the ability of those with financial interests to use this as a tool to shake down institutions or individuals. We all know that if someone or some entity is accused of systematic bias or the R-word they'll just do whatever it takes to make it go away quickly, no rational argument. Previous or current professional shake down artists such as this particular author should at a minimum have their conflicts disclosed.