Fanning the flames?

[seer]

From an article published in The New Yorker on Monday looking at the impact of the congressional appearance by Nemat Shafik: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...dom-under-fire

So what is you point or problem?

[CivilDiscourse]

From an article published in The New Yorker on Monday looking at the impact of the congressional appearance by Nemat Shafik: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...dom-under-fire

The right at stake in these events is that of academic freedom, a right that derives from the role the university plays in American life. Professors don’t work for politicians, they don’t work for trustees, and they don’t work for themselves. They work for the public. Their job is to produce scholarship and instruction that add to society’s store of knowledge. They commit themselves to doing this disinterestedly: that is, without regard to financial, partisan, or personal advantage. In exchange, society allows them to insulate themselves—and to some extent their students—against external interference in their affairs. It builds them a tower.

The concept originated in Germany—the German term is Lehrfreiheit, freedom to teach—and it was imported here in the late nineteenth century, along with the model, also German, of the research university, an educational institution in which the faculty produce scholarship and research. Since that time, it has been understood that academic freedom is the defining feature of the modern research university.

[...]

Academic freedom is related to, but not the same as, freedom of speech in the First Amendment sense. In the public square, you can say or publish ignorant things, hateful things, in many cases false things, and the state cannot touch you. Academic freedom doesn’t work that way. Academic discourse is rigorously policed. It’s just that the police are professors.

Faculty members pass judgment on the work that their colleagues produce, and they decide whom to hire, whom to fire, and what to teach. They see that the norms of academic inquiry are observed. Those norms derive from the first great battle over academic freedom in the nineteenth century—science versus religion. The model of inquiry in the modern research university is secular and scientific. All views and all hypotheses must be fairly tested, and their success depends entirely on their ability to persuade by evidence and by rational argument. No a-priori judgments are permitted, and there is no appeal to a higher authority.

There are, therefore, all kinds of professional constraints on academic expression. The scholarship that academics publish has to be approved by their peers. The protocols of citation must be observed, ad-hominem arguments are not tolerated, unsubstantiated claims are dismissed, and so on. Although academics regard the word “orthodoxy” with horror, there is a lot of tacit orthodoxy in the university, as there is in any business. People who are trained alike tend to think alike. But, as long as academic judgments are made by consensus, not by fiat, and by experts, not by amateurs, it is assumed that the knowledge machine is operating fairly and efficiently. The public can trust the product.

[...]

This is why the phenomenon that goes by the shorthand October 7th was a crisis for American higher education. The impression that some universities were not policing themselves competently, that their campuses were out of control, provided an opening to parties looking to affect the kind of knowledge that universities produce, who is allowed to produce it, and how it is taught—decisions that are traditionally the prerogative of the faculty. Politicians who want to chill certain kinds of academic expression think that they can do this by threatening to revoke a university’s tax-exempt status or tax its endowment. In the current political climate, it is not hard to imagine such things happening. If they did, it would be a straight-up abrogation of the social pact.

But would it be unconstitutional? What kind of right is the right to academic freedom?

[...]

Academic freedom is an understanding, not a law. It can’t just be invoked. It has to be asserted and defended. That’s why it’s so disheartening that leaders of great universities appear reluctant to speak up for the rights of independent inquiry and free expression for which Americans have fought. Even after Shafik offered up faculty sacrifices on the congressional altar and called in the N.Y.P.D., Republicans responded by demanding her resignation. If capitulation isn’t working, not much is lost by trying some defiance

I didn't ask for an article. I asked you a question. You hide behind articles then deny you stated a position.

What makes you think the concept of academic freedom is relevant to this situation?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I didn't ask for an article. I asked you a question. You hide behind articles then deny you stated a position.

What makes you think the concept of academic freedom is relevant to this situation?

I did not give you the full article I gave the sections I considered relevant.

[seer]

I did not give you the full article I gave the sections I considered relevant.

Do you think that academic freedom has any limits? How about an outspoken Neo Nazi professor?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you think that academic freedom has any limits? How about an outspoken Neo Nazi professor?

You could have answered your own question by reading the extract I cited.

Academic freedom is related to, but not the same as, freedom of speech in the First Amendment sense. In the public square, you can say or publish ignorant things, hateful things, in many cases false things, and the state cannot touch you. Academic freedom doesn’t work that way. Academic discourse is rigorously policed. It’s just that the police are professors.

Faculty members pass judgment on the work that their colleagues produce, and they decide whom to hire, whom to fire, and what to teach. They see that the norms of academic inquiry are observed. Those norms derive from the first great battle over academic freedom in the nineteenth century—science versus religion. The model of inquiry in the modern research university is secular and scientific. All views and all hypotheses must be fairly tested, and their success depends entirely on their ability to persuade by evidence and by rational argument. No a-priori judgments are permitted, and there is no appeal to a higher authority.

[seer]

You could have answered your own question by reading the extract I cited.

Academic freedom is related to, but not the same as, freedom of speech in the First Amendment sense. In the public square, you can say or publish ignorant things, hateful things, in many cases false things, and the state cannot touch you. Academic freedom doesn’t work that way. Academic discourse is rigorously policed. It’s just that the police are professors.

Faculty members pass judgment on the work that their colleagues produce, and they decide whom to hire, whom to fire, and what to teach. They see that the norms of academic inquiry are observed. Those norms derive from the first great battle over academic freedom in the nineteenth century—science versus religion. The model of inquiry in the modern research university is secular and scientific. All views and all hypotheses must be fairly tested, and their success depends entirely on their ability to persuade by evidence and by rational argument. No a-priori judgments are permitted, and there is no appeal to a higher authority.

But is that what YOU believe? BTW the underlined has little to do with much of academics today. In political or social sciences or gender studies or the humanities.

[CivilDiscourse]

I did not give you the full article I gave the sections I considered relevant.

Ok. So, spell it out for me in your own words.

[Sparko]

Ok. So, spell it out for me in your own words.

3 pages and she still can't tell us the point of the thread?

[CivilDiscourse]

3 pages and she still can't tell us the point of the thread?

I'm still trying to figure out what academic freedom has to do with Illegal actions, trespassing, destruction of property, etc.

[Sparko]

I'm still trying to figure out what academic freedom has to do with Illegal actions, trespassing, destruction of property, etc.

Me too. Maybe because using academic freedom, the professors have been indoctrinating these gullible kids with notions of protests, socialism, etc, and now they are reaping their reward as their campuses are being destroyed by those same students.

[CivilDiscourse]

Me too. Maybe because using academic freedom, the professors have been indoctrinating these gullible kids with notions of protests, socialism, etc, and now they are reaping their reward as their campuses are being destroyed by those same students.

President is assassinated.
H_A: How does this influence your opinion of the extra letter "u" that British use in words like "honour" and "colour"?

[seer]

President is assassinated.
H_A: How does this influence your opinion of the extra letter "u" that British use in words like "honour" and "colour"?

[Sparko]

President is assassinated.
H_A: How does this influence your opinion of the extra letter "u" that British use in words like "honour" and "colour"?

Maybe he was Murdoured.

[Juvenal]

Me too. Maybe because using academic freedom, the professors have been indoctrinating these gullible kids with notions of protests, socialism, etc, and now they are reaping their reward as their campuses are being destroyed by those same students.

Opinion Professors indoctrinating students? In reality, it’s the other way around.
Brian Broome is the author of “Punch Me Up to the Gods: A Memoir” and will be writer-in-residence at St. Mary’s College (California) in 2022.
.

During the first few days of class, my students are silent and nervous. They are college first-years, and the class is English Composition. My job is to teach them to communicate effectively through writing. They file in anxiously and choose their seats.

The majority are White and have come from suburbs around Pittsburgh, north New Jersey and Philadelphia. Most are away from home for the very first time.

I try to look the part of an English professor in shirt, tie and jacket with jeans. Professional but not too fussy. This is an insecurity on my part. Many of my White colleagues don’t bother with this sartorial performance and teach in T-shirts and shorts. I feel I have to step it up because of the looks of confusion I have received from my White students when they walk into the room and see a Black man standing there in a T-shirt. They look past me toward the door, waiting for the teacher to arrive. Even when I’m in shirt and tie, some still do.

One day, I ask my class whether I am the first Black teacher they’ve ever had. All but one say yes. My mere presence for many is a lesson.

I wouldn’t say that my White students are racist. They’ve simply never had any meaningful interaction with anyone except for other White people. People who live and think in the same ways that their parents do. This leaves them with preconceived notions that are based in ignorance in this ever-changing culture.

I give my students grown-up essays to read. One can’t learn to write well unless one reads. I make sure that I provide readings from authors of varied backgrounds. We dive into and dissect these texts, and these discussions lead to generative and sometimes difficult conversations. Most of my students have been taught that they should treat everyone the same. They have been taught that the “content of their character” portion of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech is all they need to know, and that America is a strict meritocracy.

But they live in a world in which they can plainly see that dream is not becoming a reality. We often dismiss the young as being blissfully unaware. They are not. They understand what is happening around them.

My Black, Hispanic and Asian students write about their experiences with racism in America. My Jewish students write about their experiences with antisemitism. My Muslim students write about the harassment they’ve faced. Everyone shares their work and listens, and it is my hope that everyone learns.

One day, as we discussed an essay by the gay humorist and author David Sedaris, a student in the back of the class raised his hand. He said that he related to the essay because he and his boyfriend had been through a similar experience. He paused for a long moment before he said “boyfriend.”

This was an announcement. Every student in the class turned to look at him. They turned to him to see whether his announcement had turned him into something new. Something to be feared. They turned to me to see how I would react. When I did not, they let it go. A few days later, another student introduced her girlfriend into the discussion. Announcements such as these don’t happen in high school.

I have heard the complaints of conservatives who believe that American colleges are indoctrinating their children. I don’t understand this. From where I sit, this complaint is only rooted in the fear that their children might acquire some empathy and understanding.

I am amused why many conservatives believe those of us who teach in college hold such sway over their children. They could not be more misinformed. My students regard me just as they regard all old people: as someone they have to deal with until they return to the company of other young people.

For my part, I can barely get them to read the syllabus.

In short, their children aren’t listening to me; they are listening to and seeing the humanity in each other as they take in the world outside the bubble in which they once lived. They are the ones who taught me about they/them pronouns, not the other way around.

Far from being indoctrinated, most are just opening their eyes. Note to parents: When you send your kids away from home, many of their suspicions about your beliefs are confirmed. They become even more curious about the lives of people who are not like themselves despite your efforts to mold them into younger versions of yourselves. They are merely doing what young people have always done.

Next year, I may relax my dress code just a bit. I may occasionally show up to teach in a T-shirt and jeans and forgo the professor costume. Because my students have also taught me this: I don’t have to play dress-up to teach.

[Mountain Man]

Professor: assigns his class an essay by a homosexual humorist.

Also the professor: claims he's not trying to indoctrinate the students.

Now that's funny!