ACTA's Must-Reads
« Commission needs to regain focus | Main | Conservative critics need not apply »
Fish on academic freedom
Stanley Fish takes up the Kevin Barrett case in the editorial pages of today's New York TImes, explaining what academic freedom is and how misunderstandings thereof have contributed to the public relations disaster that UW now faces as state legislators demand that Kevin Barrett be fired.
Fish begins with a quick parsing of the concept of academic freedom:
Mr. Barrett's critics argue that academic freedom has limits and should not be invoked to justify the dissemination of lies and fantasies. Mr. Barrett's supporters (most of whom are not partisans of his conspiracy theory) insist that it is the very point of an academic institution to entertain all points of view, however unpopular. (This was the position taken by the university's provost, Patrick Farrell, when he ruled on July 10 that Mr. Barrett would be retained: "We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas.")Both sides get it wrong. The problem is that each assumes that academic freedom is about protecting the content of a professor's speech; one side thinks that no content should be ruled out in advance; while the other would draw the line at propositions (like the denial of the Holocaust or the flatness of the world) considered by almost everyone to be crazy or dangerous.
But in fact, academic freedom has nothing to do with content. It is not a subset of the general freedom of Americans to say anything they like (so long as it is not an incitement to violence or is treasonous or libelous). Rather, academic freedom is the freedom of academics to study anything they like; the freedom, that is, to subject any body of material, however unpromising it might seem, to academic interrogation and analysis.
Academic freedom means that if I think that there may be an intellectual payoff to be had by turning an academic lens on material others consider trivial--golf tees, gourmet coffee, lingerie ads, convenience stores, street names, whatever--I should get a chance to try. If I manage to demonstrate to my peers and students that studying this material yields insights into matters of general intellectual interest, there is a new topic under the academic sun and a new subject for classroom discussion.
In other words, academic freedom, according to Fish, is the freedom to choose topics of investigation. It is not the freedom to dispense with reasoned analysis, or to subscribe to crackpot theories in lieu of logical consideration. Academic freedom, for Fish, is the freedom to undertake courses of study; it is not the freedom to reach any and all conclusions.
Fish goes on to articulate a position on classroom conduct that resonates strongly with ACTA's own. Explaining "where the line between the responsible and irresponsible practice of academic freedom should always be drawn," Fish notes that
Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth. But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply. ... It is perfectly possible to teach a viewpoint without embracing it and urging it. But the moment a professor does embrace and urge it, academic study has ceased and been replaced by partisan advocacy. And that is a moment no college administration should allow to occur.
At this point, Fish--himself a former administrator--delivers a procedural tutorial to UW officials with the aim of revealing to them how their misunderstanding of academic freedom has worsened their predicament at the precise point that they sought to resolve it:
Provost Farrell doesn't quite see it that way, because he is too hung up on questions of content and balance. He thinks that the important thing is to assure a diversity of views in the classroom, and so he is reassured when Mr. Barrett promises to surround his "unconventional" ideas and "personal opinions" with readings "representing a variety of viewpoints."But the number of viewpoints Mr. Barrett presents to his students is not the measure of his responsibility. There is, in fact, no academic requirement to include more than one view of an academic issue, although it is usually pedagogically useful to do so. The true requirement is that no matter how many (or few) views are presented to the students, they should be offered as objects of analysis rather than as candidates for allegiance.
There is a world of difference, for example, between surveying the pro and con arguments about the Iraq war, a perfectly appropriate academic assignment, and pressing students to come down on your side. Of course the instructor who presides over such a survey is likely to be a partisan of one position or the other--after all, who doesn't have an opinion on the Iraq war?--but it is part of a teacher's job to set personal conviction aside for the hour or two when a class is in session and allow the techniques and protocols of academic research full sway.
This restraint should not be too difficult to exercise. After all, we require and expect it of judges, referees and reporters. And while its exercise may not always be total, it is both important and possible to make the effort.
Thus the question Provost Farrell should put to Mr. Barrett is not "Do you hold these views?" (he can hold any views he likes) or "Do you proclaim them in public?" (he has that right no less that the rest of us) or even "Do you surround them with the views of others?"
Rather, the question should be: "Do you separate yourself from your partisan identity when you are in the employ of the citizens of Wisconsin and teach subject matter--whatever it is--rather than urge political action?" If the answer is yes, allowing Mr. Barrett to remain in the classroom is warranted. If the answer is no, (or if a yes answer is followed by classroom behavior that contradicts it) he should be shown the door. Not because he would be teaching the "wrong" things, but because he would have abandoned teaching for indoctrination.
The advantage of this way of thinking about the issue is that it outflanks the sloganeering and posturing both sides indulge in: on the one hand, faculty members who shout "academic freedom" and mean by it an instructor's right to say or advocate anything at all with impunity; on the other hand, state legislators who shout "not on our dime" and mean by it that they can tell academics what ideas they can and cannot bring into the classroom.
All you have to do is remember that academic freedom is just that: the freedom to do an academic job without external interference. It is not the freedom to do other jobs, jobs you are neither trained for nor paid to perform. While there should be no restrictions on what can be taught--no list of interdicted ideas or topics--there should be an absolute restriction on appropriating the scene of teaching for partisan political ideals. Teachers who use the classroom to indoctrinate make the enterprise of higher education vulnerable to its critics and shortchange students in the guise of showing them the true way.
Among other things, Fish's analysis amounts to an acknowledgement that UW was right to investigate Barrett's fitness to teach the course, as well as a tacit recommendation that his teaching should be closely monitored, and that he should be fired if he crosses the line between educating and proselytizing. More broadly, Fish takes as a given what too many defenders of the academic status quo refuse to acknowledge: that there are teachers out there who do use the classroom to indoctrinate, and that there are administrators out there who are seriously ill-equipped to address that problem in any meaningful way when it does arise.
The Times' publication of this piece, written by one of the great old lions of the academic culture wars (recall that Fish chaired the English department at Duke during the years when it was making a serious bid to become the most politically and theoretically avant-garde department in the country), is highly significant. Perhaps the time has finally come for a national discussion about what academic freedom is, why it matters, what it protects, and, crucially, where its privileges end.
Posted by acta online on July 23, 2006 at July 23, 2006 04:30 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/191
Comments
It seems to me that Stanley Fish is still evading the question here, even though he is headed in a useful direction about what academic freedom means.
Apart from the fact that Barrett is an adjunct, hired to teach a class. Something like Intro to Islamic Studies, as I recall, I think it was course number 109. Nothing more, not to engage in research. Not “to study anything they like; the freedom, that is, to subject any body of material, however unpromising it might seem, to academic interrogation and analysis.”
But lets say Barrett had achieved a position in Islamic Studies where he is free to “study anything he likes”. Say crackpot conspiracy theories, or Islamic alchemy, or even to wander off into quantum gravity.
Still, he is being paid to teach Intro Islamic Studies. I don’t see how that gives him leeway to teach his wacky theory about 9/11, or Holocaust denial, or to teach that the Islamic philosophers really had discovered the genetic code back in the year 1111.
So I think those responsible for UW -- I presume some sort of state board and, ultimately, the legislature – have a right to intervene in Intro 109 when they see that such stuff is about to be taught. However much -- and it’s a lot -- I may cringe at the idea of the legislature intervening in this way.
Perhaps Stanley’s notions of academic freedom mesh in this case with the type of oversight that seems appropriate to me. But that is not clear from reading his NYT piece.
Posted by: Michael Kellman at July 23, 2006 01:13 PM
acta and Stanley Fish on the same page, agreeing almost word for word? I think that's highly significant. It seems that from now on, those who preach instead of teach will have no place to run for cover.
Posted by: fred mann at July 23, 2006 01:40 PM
Fish's argument breaks down once we begin to academically investigate the distinction between "subjecting to analysis" and "taking a position."
His example -- reasons for and against the Iraq war -- is simplistic. A better example might be the Marxist analysis of a text. Is it brainwashing to teach literary history from a historical-materialist perspective? David Horowitz would say yes. Stanley Fish would say that the professor must not teach historical materialism, but must offer historical materialism as itself the object of study (even if the class's main object of study is, say, the fiction of Henry James).
But would the same hold true for, say, a biologist? Can a biologist teach the anatomy of dolphins, or must s/he also offer empiricism up as the object of study?
Fish makes a distinction between objects and lens of study. But many would argue that every lens is itself a potential object of study. At what point can the professor settle down and teach?
Posted by: Karen Eliot at July 23, 2006 04:45 PM
This is simply absurd lost in absurdity. To go from discussing whether Intro 109 should teach that the WTC was an American conspiracy to questioning whether standard anatomy is a legitimate subject (I suppose in Intro Bio). And how about teaching Intro Bio from a historical-materialist perspective? Would that be as legitimate as teaching anatomy? More legitimate?
Posted by: Michael Kellman at July 23, 2006 08:49 PM
Holy good night -- there is BARELY enough time to cover specifics and facts in many classes. Now, delusional, politicized nut-jobs -- yes, nut-jobs -- like Kevin Barrett, PhD, want to use scarce class-time for moronic counter-factual dreck that question generalized matters such as 9/11, the Holocaust, moon landings, flat-earth reality, Da Vinci Code, Vince Foster's suicide, Nixon and Watergate, etc.
When Wisconsin taxpayers reduce support for UW-Madison due to waste, questionable judgment, and delusion -- is that when UW-Madison executive management "get it?"
Posted by: A.D. at July 27, 2006 07:27 AM
Who is going to be hurt if UW Madison's budget is cut? Certainly not the president of the university or the people responsible for this fiasco. Instead, programs will be scaled back, or faculty salaries made even less competitive at Madison than they already are.
If the legislature is REALLY serious about showing how upset they are, how about punishing the people who are responsible?
Posted by: Michael Kellman at July 28, 2006 03:26 PM
" .. If the legislature is REALLY serious about showing how upset they are, how about punishing the people who are responsible?"
Sir, please get a grip. Recall the great Democrat president, LBJ -- "when you have them by the b---s, their hearts and minds will follow."
Let the faculty vote any dissatisfaction, viz. Larry Summers. Let the provost's stooges resign.
There is more than enough money in higher education. More money just fuels more Barrett-like weirdness. Millions live within their budgets -- so should higher-ed. Get used to it.
Posted by: A.D. at July 28, 2006 06:17 PM
A.D.: OK, cut UW's budget, I guarantee they will live within it -- since they always have, and are mandated to by law. (They don't have bankers to run to for decades like the car makers and other businesses). Cut the classes, cut the tenure-track faculty. Train fewer nurses and engineers in Wisconsin, hire more Fillipinos and Indians. Hire more people like Barrett.
Your response really is irrational. Read what I said! Who is going to be hurt by cutting the budget? NOT the president of the university or the people responsible for this fiasco.
Posted by: Michael Kellman at July 29, 2006 12:08 PM
"Your response really is irrational. Read what I said! Who is going to be hurt by cutting the budget? NOT the president of the university or the people responsible for this fiasco."
Why not? Presidents (and other administrators) can be (and are) fired for any number of reasons, especially when they no longer bring in money. If the school loses enough funding because of the administration's malfeasance, why would trustees allow the malfeasance to continue? Sooner or later (read: sooner), financial devastation will force trustee action, whether the admninstration and faculty like it or not.
Posted by: Federal Dog at July 29, 2006 03:43 PM
Federal Dog: What I'm saying is, go to the source, right away, instead of taking steps that are damaging, feckless, or both.
When you're losing the war, you don't defund the troops, you replace the generals or commander-in-chief.
Posted by: Michael Kellman at August 4, 2006 09:51 PM