ACTA's Must-Reads
« Gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche | Main | Wall Street Journal gets it right »
ACTA in IHE
The debate about the future of University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill has become a debate about the meaning of academic freedom. In today's Inside Higher Ed, ACTA president Anne D. Neal explains what's at stake in the Churchill decision, arguing that even the AAUP, which has defined and preserved academic freedom in this country for nearly a century, cannot agree any longer about what academic freedom actually is:
Historically the custodian of academic freedom, the AAUP is struggling to clarify, for itself and others, what academic freedom is. And that struggle centers on accountability--which, unfortunately, explains much of why the AAUP is encountering such difficulty. Roger Bowen, the outgoing general secretary, has vocally defended the notion that academics should not have to answer to anyone but themselves. "It should be evident," he has written, "that the sufficient condition for securing the academic freedom of our profession is the profession itself."
This is a far cry from Brown's conception of academic freedom as part of a public trust. It's also a far cry from the AAUP's own foundational 1940 statement on academic freedom, which defines it as a set of "duties correlative with rights" and which sees academic freedom as the means by which colleges and universities serve the public trust: "Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher...or the institution as a whole."
Colorado has acknowledged that its system of peer review and professional assessment failed in Churchill's case. It has taken steps to repair that system. And it has urged academics across the country to learn from its example. As Brown observed 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."
Noting that "much of the scrutiny we are under is of our own creation," Brown urged academics to recognize how their reluctance to be accountable to the public has produced "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."
The arguments of Churchill and his misguided defenders do--regrettably--arise from a basic conviction that academics should be free from accountability. They involve manipulating the term "academic freedom" in ways that undermine a concept of foundational importance to the academic enterprise. They amount to an attempt to turn the concept inside out--morphing what was originally a cluster of interlocking privileges and responsibilities centered on the public good into a justification for the false idea that academics have no obligation to the public at all. Finally, they stem from the profoundly mistaken premise--which Brown rebuts in his letter to the Board of Regents--that input from the public, from constituencies such as alumni and trustees, violates academic freedom as well.
Why else would Churchill and his defenders absurdly claim that Brown's advisory role with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni--which ended a decade ago--invalidates his opinion?
Far from being an "attack" on academic freedom, Colorado's handling of the Churchill affair is, in fact, in defense of academic freedom.
Neal concludes by noting that Churchill's future is not the only thing that hangs in the balance of Colorado's decision--the integrity of academia does, too.
Posted by acta online on June 19, 2007 at June 19, 2007 01:12 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/374