Academic freedom, tenure, and the First Amendment
We don't have a thread devoted to academic freedom, the tenure system, and the First Amendment. Although I'm sure this thread will eventually get locked, it's an appropriate subject for discussion, so we might as well give it a shot.
As a starting point, I'll offer the ongoing shitshow at the University of Indiana. Eric Rasmusen is a tenured professor of business and economics at the university. He recently tweeted an article (not written by him) titled "Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably." He pulled the following line from the article: "geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness."
In the past, he apparently has stated:
“That he believes that women do not belong in the workplace, particularly not in academia, and that he believes most women would prefer to have a boss than be one; he has used slurs in his posts about women;
“That gay men should not be permitted in academia either, because he believes they are promiscuous and unable to avoid abusing students;
“That he believes that black students are generally unqualified for attendance at elite institutions, and are generally inferior academically to white students.”
Not surprisingly, a lot of people have called for his dismissal. The university has harshly condemned his views but has taken the position that it cannot fire him without violating the First Amendment. Rather than fire Rasmusen, the University has instituted various measures that seem like a firewall of sorts. For example, no student is required to take classes with Rasmusen. And Rasmusen must follow some sort of double blind protocol when grading students.
Here is an article describing the situation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education...
The University of Pennsylvania Law School has had a similar ongoing saga with a professor named Amy Wax. Wax has said inflammatory things about immigrants, among other groups.
What is the appropriate university response in situations like this?
4 Replies
There has been a lot of talk in conservative circles about the need to purge what conservatives call gender and race ideology from publicly funded education. I decided that bump this thread to highlight an example of what pursuing this goal means in actual practice. Earlier this year, a Texas A&M philosophy professor who teaches a core curriculum class titled "Contemporary Moral Problems" was instructed that he had to amend his syllabus to excise modules on race and gender ideology in order to comply with recent policies implemented by the Texas A&M Board of Regents. He further was instructed to excise assigned readings related to the topic, which included passages from Plato's Symposium.
The professor responded by stating that the syllabus was not meaningfully different than in prior years and confirming that his class did not advocate for any particular ideology. The university was unpersuaded and the professor ultimately removed the material from the syllabus and replaced it with a section on academic freedom.
Some more info from that site:
No system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity, unless the course and the relevant course materials are approved in advance by the member CEO
[The policy offers the following definitions:]
Gender Ideology – means a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex.
Race Ideology – means a concept that attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity, accuse them of being oppressors in a racial hierarchy or conspiracy, ascribe to them less value as contributors to society and public discourse because of their race or ethnicity, or assign them intrinsic guilt based on the actions of their presumed ancestors or relatives in other areas of the world. This also includes course content that promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity, rather than academic instruction.
They're just getting started. That sort of stuff is all over the place. Back during the Kirk killing, his group and others were calling on people to get their k-12 teaching certificates and providing all the resources. They've got something in mind to cause a crisis to evoke emergency powers.
There has been a lot of talk in conservative circles about the need to purge what conservatives call gender and race ideology from publicly funded education. I decided that bump this thread to highlight an example of what pursuing this goal means in actual practice. Earlier this year, a Texas A&M philosophy professor who teaches a core curriculum class titled "Contemporary Mo
Long overdue, that Plato guy has been allowed to spew his vile rhetoric for millennia. That deeply disturbed man even favoured censorship of books, arguing that the state had to it to foster a stable state and virtuous citizens. You can't have that stuff taught in a classroom, imagine the society it would foster.
Jokes aside, the idea of the university free to decide its own curriculum free from government influence actually developed in how of the most top heavy, controlled and conservative societies in western history, and its originator was a political conservative himself. The state was Prussia and the man was Humboldt.
The academic effect was staggering. The Humboldtian model is often compared to the French system at the time, where political views, curriculum and discipline was heavily controlled by the state. The free universities of Germany (not really Germany at that time, Prussia was briefly under French control, then briefly an independent kingdom, then member of the German confederation, then the German Federation) had an explosion of academic breakthroughs in science and academia, catapulting them leagues ahead more authoritarian models for higher education.
Which is also why it was the academic model (however, not economic) chosen by so many American universities during this period. Americans have historically always had a knack for figuring out what works and go with it, though maybe less so these days.
Today the debate rages on in subjects such as this one on state censorship or state influences, in discussions on basic science vs applied science, in market-based curriculums vs knowledge-based curriculums etc.
Personally, I would like to see a lot more free thinking in universities, not less. University freedom has been encroached on by education standardisation, governments with decreasing acceptance for free expression, publication requirements that favour quantity, market-based decision-making and bureaucracy. When combined, the effect on academic freedom is, in my view, unhealthy. While some of these things make education more universal, I do believe it hinders scientific breakthrough.
Die von dir beschriebene Situation trifft den Kern einer schwierigen Gratwanderung in der akademischen Welt. Auf der einen Seite stehen der erste Verfassungszusatz und das Prinzip der akademischen Freiheit, die genau dazu da sind, Wissenschaftlern zu ermöglichen, kontroverse Ideen zu erforschen und zu äußern, ohne Vergeltungsmaßnahmen befürchten zu müssen. Auf der anderen Seite haben Universitäten die Verantwortung, ein sicheres, integratives und produktives Lernumfeld für alle Studierenden zu schaffen.
Die Maßnahmen, die die University of Indiana Berichten zufolge ergriffen hat – Studierenden zu erlauben, seinen Kursen fernzubleiben, und ein anonymes Benotungsverfahren einzuführen – scheinen ein Gratwanderung versucht https://neon54-de.net/ auch das Neon54 Casino mit seinem noblen Angebot Versuch zu sein, genau diese Spannung zu bewältigen. Sie bestrafen den Professor nicht für seine Äußerungen, was bei einer öffentlichen Universität erhebliche verfassungsrechtliche Bedenken aufwerfen würde, versuchen aber, die direkten Auswirkungen auf Studienteilnehmer abzumildern, die sich möglicherweise angegriffen fühlen oder nicht in der Lage sehen, in seinem Klassenzimmer effektiv zu lernen.
Dieser Ansatz errichtet im Wesentlichen eine Schutzwand. Er schützt das Recht des Einzelnen, seine Ansichten zu vertreten und zu äußern, so anstößig sie auch sein mögen, während gleichzeitig versucht wird, Studierende davor zu bewahren, in einem verpflichtenden Bildungsumfeld mit diesen Ansichten konfrontiert zu werden. Ob dies die "angemessene" Antwort ist, ist zutiefst subjektiv. Kritiker würden argumentieren, dass es nicht weit genug geht, dass es immer noch ein feindliches Umfeld existieren lässt und die Universität sich ihrer Pflicht entzieht, Hassreden auch dann entschiedener zu verurteilen, wenn sie sie rechtlich nicht bestrafen kann. Befürworter würden argumentieren, dass es ein rechtlich solider Kompromiss ist, der verfassungsrechtliche Prinzipien wahrt und gleichzeitig die praktischen Schäden für die Studierenden angeht.
