It’s a raw and rainy Friday afternoon in May except we are in the Chesapeake where it ought be minimally 75 degrees F and sunny. About six weeks ago I made some woman’s day (I hope as otherwise it was a mark on her memory that pains me) when she spewed at me that no, I could not get petunias yet as it has to be ‘hot, hot, Mother’s Day hot’ to plant them when we went to a local nursery. I did look up the final frost day, 10 May, so I planted my petunias when I found them last Friday (yes, I know you are envious of my chutzpah but I felt it a risk worth taking).
It’s not frosty but it is definitivamente cold today. Enough, please enough. I suppose this is the climate and the weather (not synonymous terms) asserting their freedom to undermine our confidence about planting, wearing spring clothes, and calling the water taxi for our initial trip into town this year. Not today…
Freedom is perhaps the most common assertion or privilege we are hearing in our political campaign this year. The left even says that this campaign is about protecting freedoms while the right has been saying that the left is taking away freedoms. I don’t think either side is accurate but that is not my topic.
As the world knows, U.S. colleges are experiencing upheaval reminiscent of 1968. UCLA, Virginia Tech, UT Austin, and several other schools large and small see protests of varying sizes, though some shut them down already and others still struggle to address the disruptions they are causing (to include commencement ceremonies this month).
I am unaware of any such protests at the U.S. Naval Academy about a mile from here as the crow flies (we hear the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ when the wind blows right in the morning. I should also add that a guy in the next building from us is a direct descendant of Francis Scott Key, perhaps six times removed though I have not asked that specific question) nor am I likely to hear any of the Service academies face the same challenge as they have a somewhat more overt system of chain of command leadership. But George Washington in the District, close to home, is struggling with the challenge.
What fascinates me is the faculty involvement since they are actually governed by the American Association of University Professors’ rules as members of academic world. Faculty also have other rules they must obey and ought to (I am not naïve enough to assume they all do, believe me) personal ethics that guide them in their behaviour. The AAUP is perhaps the biggest institutional driver towards establishing norms for faculty, regardless of the school each professor serves.
Faculty most often focus on the protections of tenure as a hedge against being terminated for controversy or retribution resulting from their activities as professionals. The number of tenure lines are declining, however, and far from all faculty ever achieve that status. Tenure does not allow you to kill someone or to wander into the library to blow it up but is often seen as a lifetime guarantee of employment, indirectly including freedom of speech. That lifetime job, despised by critics who attack it as ‘elitist’ and too protective of non-productive individuals once the status is granted, is not loved by all nor by administrators in institutions on the lookout for ingenious ways to undermine it.
The most common freedom expected by faculty—tenured or not—is academic freedom. Yes, that same AAUP issued a statement on academic freedom in 1940.
I started circulating the statement to the National War College faculty annually as a result. I hope they and all faculty—tenured or not—have read it though I doubt they have.
My question is how many of those same faculty actually know what that statement says? How many don’t know what it doesn’t say, either?
I would offer that the statement is a bit more convoluted than most people seem to think. I quote the relevant three points from the 1940 Statement on
‘Academic Freedom
1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.[fn4] Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.[fn5]
3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.[fn6]’
Each of these three bullets has further elaboration as footnotes but it’s the third bullet with the most relevant points to the contemporary scene in my analysis. The footnote for point three reads as follows
‘Fourth 1970 comment: This paragraph is the subject of an interpretation adopted by the sponsors of the 1940 “Statement” immediately following its endorsement:
“If the administration of a college or university feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning the teacher’s fitness for his or her position, it may proceed to file charges under paragraph 4 of the section on Academic Tenure. In pressing such charges, the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded the freedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must assume full responsibility, and the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges are free to make an investigation.’
Further, the 1970s document from which I quote is rather like a philosophical treatise with remarks entered at several points to illustrate appropriate application of the document. Put another way, it’s like the Midrash, prominent rabbis interpreting and commenting on the Talmud or law, for the academic community.
I cite the entire seven page 1940 Statement along with interpretations over the following thirty years by various AAUP conclaves as well as those academic institutions signing up to the original document. If interested, do take a look at it yourself.
The AAUP Statement is for faculty operating in society and their institutions but it is, in fact, limited in some ways. It particularly does not guarantee how faculty actions might be taken in other settings.
Huh?
It raises questions about a faculty member’s role as a citizen vis-a-vis the absolute freedom to attack policies. Put another way, the document overwhelmingly supports faculty rights but also crystalises the reality that faculty utterances may cast aspersions on themselves and the institutions employing them.
Wait, but what?
Several conservative judges, all appointed by former President Trump, intend to sanction graduates of Columbia University evidence that reality. While professors at all ranks are protected as citizens with the fundamental rights of free speech, the tension between what critics call reprehensible judgment in attacking Israel while supporting Palestinians and absolute institutional freedoms exist without a doubt. The conservative prejudice against Columbia is a de facto action rather than any de jure position that can be imposed. As far as I know, lawyers hire other lawyers as does any profession: they look for a fit, for the most appropriate educational preparation, and mental agility to do the job. Columbia may be a prominent school but no one guarantees its (or UCLA’s or other institutions where similarly prominent protests continue bedeviling the campus) graduates will receive equal consideration should something bother the firms looking to hire the graduates. This choice will begin with the incoming class so a lot could happen in the future but it is a startling turn of events.
Of course the conservative position intends to punish the students to assure Columbia abandons its relative tolerance for academic freedom. Nothing about that should be ignored but the faculty may have to reconsider their position in future should the lure of Columbia’s name turn out to be marred by these protests. It will depend on a lot of variables but this is a step which clashes with academic freedom in an indirect but meaningful manner should the approach become more generalised.
Actions create consequences. Academic freedom may be the most cherished of rights but it applies solely within the academe. Freedoms are constantly under threat in a number of indirect manners these days, whether they are women choosing health care, the sanctity of practicing whatever religion one chooses because of the ‘wall of separation’ espoused by Thomas Jefferson, or speaking out against policies with which one has strong disagreements.
People too often do not understand that those freedoms they so often cite as absolute in the Amendments to the Constitution only limit government violation of the freedoms. The Founders worried about a too powerful King and government denying rights for public behaviour. The relationships between the rest of society can be pretty messy—and only seems more so all the time.
Reading the rules isn’t enough. We all need consider how rules apply in the real world. That can be a harsh reality.
Thoughts on this tension? I am eager to hear your reactions so please send me your rebuttals, reactions, and anything else. Please feel free to circulate this if you think someone might find it of value.
Thank you for reading the newsletter today and any day. I especially thank those who subscribe to Actions Create Consequences. Your support keeps me going in expanding our civil, measured conversation on challenges we confront as a world. I don’t have all the answers but I look forward to hearing others.
Have a safe, refreshing weekend. Be well and be safe. FIN
American Association of University Professors, Statement on Academic Freedom 1940, pdf retrieved at https://www.aaup.org/file/1940%20Statement.pdf
Jess Bravin, Melissa Korn, ‘Conservative Judges Plan to Blackball Columbia University Graduates’, wsj.com, 8 May 2024, retrieved at https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/conservative-judges-plan-to-blackball-columbia-university-graduates-2e99c279?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1