Books Articles, and Items of Academic Interest
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Acad. Quest. (2014) 27:244–251 DOI 10.1007/s12129-014-9423-6 BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND ITEMS OF ACADEMIC INTEREST Books Articles, and Items of Academic Interest Peter Wood Published online: 25 April 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Academic Justice On February 18, Sandra Y. L. Korn, a senior “joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality” major, published an incendiary essay in the Harvard Crimson that quickly caught the attention of many campus observers.1 Under the headline, “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom,” Ms. Korn wrote: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.” She proceeded to do just that. (http://www.thecrimson.com/ column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/) 1The wider attention included Peter Bonilla, “‘Harvard Crimson’ Column: Time to Get Rid of Academic Freedom,” FIRE, February 21, 2014, https://www.thefire.org/harvard-crimson-column-time-to-get-rid-of- academic-freedom/; Vic Rosenthal, “Sandra Korn’s Academic Totalitarianism,” Fresno Zionism (blog), Jewish Press, February 21, 2014, http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/fresno-zionism/sandra-korns- academic-totalitarianism/2014/02/21/; Jonah Goldberg, “Attacking Diversity of Thought,” National Review Online, February 21, 2014, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371625/attacking-diversity- thought-jonah-goldberg; Bruce Bawer, “Harvard’s Rebel without a Clue,” Frontpage Mag, February 21, 2014, http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-bawer/harvards-rebel-without-a-clue/; Bill Zeiser, “A Harvard Crimson Columnist Rails Against Academic Freedom. You Won’t Believe What Happens Next,” Spectatcle Blog, American Spectator, February 20, 2014, http://spectator.org/blog/57880/harvard- crimson-columnist-rails-against-academic-freedom-you-wont-believe-what-happens; Peter Wood, “Academic Justice and Intellectual Thuggery,” Minding the Campus, February 21, 2014, http:// www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/02/academic_justice_and_intellect.html#more; Steve Larson, “Harvard Columnist: ‘Academic Justice’ Should Trump ‘Academic Freedom,’” Campus Freedom, February 24, 2014, http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5454; and Patrick J. Deneen, “What’s Wrong with Academic Freedom,” American Conservative, March 5, 2014, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ academicfreedom/. Peter Wood is editor of Academic Questions and president of the National Association of Scholars, 8 West 38th Street, Suite 503, New York, NY 10018-6229; [email protected]. His most recent book is A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now (Encounter, 2007). Books, Articles, and Items of Academic Interest 245 Korn’s main point was that permitting free expression of views on campus inevitably means allowing the presentation of ideas that contradict the values of the campus community. Her lead example was the publication in 1971 of Harvard psychology professor Richard Herrnstein’s views on the heritability of IQ, which occasioned—rightlyinher view—efforts by the Students for a Democratic Society to disrupt his classes and get him fired. This attack on academic freedom was based on a premise that has become widespread in contemporary higher education: “No academic question is ever ‘free’ from political realities,” as Korn put it. Everything scholars do is political, either implicitly, as in the support that scholarship may tacitly give existing power structures, or explicitly, as in the efforts of scholars to advance social reform. Once we take this premise on board, it is a short stroll to the ideas that Korn argues. Since we are engaged in politics no matter what, we should take care to ensure that only the right kind of politics benefits from the prestige and authority of the university. A faculty member who violates the political ideals of the campus should therefore be silenced. Korn’s bracing formulation of this is that “academic justice” is more important than academic freedom. Korn unabashedly upholds opposing “racism, sexism, and heterosexism” as a campus priority and cannot imagine any valid reason for compromising this “rigorous standard” for anything as porous as “academic freedom.” She cites various examples of opinions that she believes the Harvard community could and should appropriately quash. In addition to Herrnstein’s views on the heritability of IQ, this includes the (“hateful”) views of a particular Indian scholar who writes about Muslims in India. Korn also singles out Prof. Harvey Mansfield, who, she says, may have “the legal right” to publish statements about “ladylike modesty,” but Korn herself would “happily organize with other feminists on campus to stop him from publishing further sexist commentary under the authority of a Harvard faculty position.” She recommends that those who favor an academic boycott of Israel bypass academic freedom objections and focus on academic justice instead. Offensive Speaking Korn’s short essay occasioned a great many responses in the conservative and independent press, mostly because of her astonishing candor. It isn’t 246 Books, Articles, and Items of Academic Interest difficult to find apologists for the academic Left’s domination of college campuses and the illiberal exclusion of alternative views that typically follows from that dominance. But these apologies usually take the form of “We uphold academic freedom, but we must also uphold certain norms…” Korn’s originality lies in her dispensing with the nod to academic freedom. Perhaps she simply recognizes more fully the implications of the everything-is-political premise. This might be reckoned as a new surge of agreement with Plato’s position in The Republic, in which Socrates is given the argument that, in the pursuit of justice, those who undermine the city’s noble lies must be excluded. In any case, John Stuart Mill’s ideas that intellectual freedom and debate are necessary foundations for a good society seem to have lost much of their grip on campus these days. A new willingness to shut down or even foreclose debate is visible. In truth, the trampling of academic freedom by forces within the academy has been underway for some time. Greg Lukianoff’s Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of the American Debate (2012) provided a Cook’s tour of one side of the suppression. But the story is still larger than speech codes and harassment rules. Benchmark cases include Harvard’s firing of president Larry Summers in 2005 and Columbia University’s anemic response to the mobbing of Jim Gilchrist in 2006. To these we can now add the September 2011 mobbing by University of Wisconsin students of a press conference in which the Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg was attempting to speak, the swarming by radical students of a trustees’ meeting at Swarthmore in May 2013, and the shouting down at Brown University of New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly in October 2013. A full account of this trend has yet to be written, but one aspect that deserves close attention is the emergence of rhetoric that justifies the use of force to prevent the expression of someone else’s views. In general, this rhetoric deploys the idea that the speaker who has been silenced enjoyed an unfair advantage and that the protesters were simply using the tools necessary to ensure that the “voice of the voiceless” was heard. The silencing of someone else, in other words, was itself an act of free speech. I am not clear where this conceit of silencing-in-the-name-of-free-speech originated, but I see it in print in the aftermath of every incident. After the Brown shout-down, for example, an alumna wrote: “I am proud to be part of Books, Articles, and Items of Academic Interest 247 the community that booed Kelly offstage. Nobody needs to entertain arguments that assert this in any way prevents open discourse.” So wrote Chris Norris-LeBlanc (Class of 2013) in an October 30, 2013, letter to the editor of the Brown Daily Herald. Norris-LeBlanc explained that the protestors were really “trying to preserve…rigorinanacademic environment.” That rigor is undermined when a dominant view “is unchallengeable.”“When this happens, freedom of speech is compromised.” (http://www.browndailyherald.com/2013/10/30/letters-community-weighs- protest-cancellation-ray-kelly-lecture/) In other words, to maintain free speech on campus, it is important to silence some views. As an unnamed Army major told Peter Arnett in Vietnam a long time ago, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Go/Don’tGo On February 11, the Pew Research Center issued a white paper, The Rising Cost of Not Going to College. Largely based on an October 2013 survey of 2,002 adults, the report is another entry in the long-running debate over the wisdom of American social policy that encourages a large percentage of young people to pursue college degrees. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2014/02/SDT- higher-ed-FINAL-02-11-2014.pdf) We have covered this debate in Academic Questions, at the National Association of Scholars national meeting in 2013, and in various other NAS publications. Most recently, Herb London reviewed William Bennett and David Wilezol’s Is College Worth It? (Fall 2013) in which the authors introduce a ranking of colleges based on “return on investment.” The authors of the new Pew report—Paul Taylor, Kim Parker, Rich Morin, Rick Fry, Eileen Pattern, and Anna Brown—do not cite Bennett and Wilezol. Nor do they mention Glenn Harlan Reynolds, whose new book, The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is another major expression of skepticism about the prevailing American model of “going to college.” Nor do they mention Richard Vedder and his Center for College Affordability and Productivity, which has issued a series of data-rich analyses of how college graduates are faring in the marketplace. But Bennett, Wilezol, Reynolds, and Vedder are pretty clearly the predicates of the opening sentence of The Rising Cost of Not Going to 248 Books, Articles, and Items of Academic Interest College, which refers to “those who question the value of college in this era of soaring student debt and high unemployment.” Taylor et al.