ACTA's Must-Reads
« The Shakespeare buzz, contd. | Main | Core distinctions »
Academic freedom wins in Colorado
Two years ago, the public learned about University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill's essay comparing the World Trade Center victims to "little Eichmanns"--and the University of Colorado found itself at the center of a national scandal. After a lengthy investigation that found Churchill guilty of research misconduct, this revealing chapter of academic history is finally drawing to a close. In an eloquently worded letter, University of Colorado president Hank Brown has called for Churchill to be fired--and debate rages about what it all means.
The debate centers on what the Churchill affair says about academic freedom. Some say that Churchill was only investigated because the university wanted to punish him for expressing his views--and that therefore his academic freedom was violated. Some generalize outward from that premise, arguing that Churchill's case marks a broader attack on academic freedom itself. Others argue the opposite: that Churchill's academic freedom was honored, and that, in holding Churchill accountable for his breach of scholarly ethics, the University of Colorado has effected a necessary clarification of what academic freedom really is.
Crucially, Inside Higher Ed's coverage documents a split within the AAUP--traditionally the caretaker of academic freedom--on this matter. The local University of Colorado chapter argues that Churchill's academic freedom was violated (its president, education professor Margaret LeCompte, says that the investigation marked "an opening wedge in the concerted effort to curb academic freedom and tenure"). Meanwhile, Jonathan Knight, head of the national AAUP's academic freedom program, defended a university's right to sanction a professor for academic misconduct regardless of his notoriety in the public sphere.
But while Inside Higher Ed notes the division within the AAUP, it ignores the noteworthy convergence of the national AAUP's position with that of ACTA.
ACTA has for years argued, in numerous contexts, that academic freedom does not mean "anything goes." Noting that accountability is a central tenet of academic freedom as the AAUP originally conceived it, ACTA has long argued that universities have an obligation to ensure that faculty members are living up to the ethical compact that academic freedom represents.
ACTA has maintained just this position throughout the Churchill affair, and has, as a result, been an important figure throughout the Churchill debate.
When the Churchill scandal first broke, many elected officials and public figures called for Churchill to be fired. But ACTA loudly and decisively rejected those demands. ACTA defended Churchill's academic freedom, reminding the University that it cannot punish professors for their views, and urging the University to ensure that Churchill receive due process in any investigation that it might subsequently undertake. In the wake of those recommendations, Churchill was not fired, his free speech rights have been acknowledged, and his due process rights have been meticulously respected.
When the University of Colorado subsequently investigated allegations that Churchill had committed research misconduct, ACTA kept a close eye on the process to ensure that the university struck a proper balance between competing prerogatives: Churchill’s academic freedom and First Amendment rights had to be honored even as the University assessed the charges against him. When CU issued its report in June 2006, ACTA applauded the university for the care, restraint, and thoroughness with which it had studied Churchill's alleged research misconduct and scrutinized its own procedures for hiring, reviewing, and promoting faculty members. The report, with its recommendations for tightened personnel practices, was a model of institutional tact and an encouraging sign of CU's commitment to accountability.
To its great credit, CU has welcomed the opportunity to engage in some crucial self-examination. As CU president Hank Brown put it last March,
It is imperative that we in higher education take the initiative to examine ourselves. There are many lawmakers at the state and federal level willing to intervene if we do not do so. Much of the scrutiny we are under is of our own creation. Colleges and universities have been less than forthcoming with the public and legislators about tenure, leading to the suspicion that higher education's primary focus is protecting its own rather than guaranteeing the highly effective and productive teachers and researchers that students and taxpayers deserve.
A champion of streamlined internal procedures and public accountability, Brown has led CU during a period of crucial transition.
Brown's announcement that he believes Churchill should be fired does not conclude the disciplinary process. But it does mark an important and necessary move on CU's part: It not only brings the lengthy Churchill investigation one step closer to closure, but also signifies the dawn of a new era at CU.
Two years ago, the University of Colorado was to many a symbol of all that is wrong with academia. Today, it is becoming a model for how universities can responsibly ensure educational quality and scholarly integrity--while still, as ACTA and the AAUP apparently agree--respecting academic freedom.
Posted by acta online at May 31, 2007 05:18 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/365