One of the highlights of last weekend’s annual meeting of the National Association of Scholars (NAS) was a debate over the meaning of academic freedom, pitting the president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), Cary Nelson against the president of the National Association of Scholars, Peter Wood.
Some background here is important. The AAUP is a venerable organization that was formed in 1915 and fought over the decades to maintain faculty professionalism and to protect against attacks on the academic freedom of professors, most notably during the McCarthy era. In recent decades, however, the AAUP has fallen under the control of leftist radicals intent on promoting unionization and defending the professoriate against criticism that they are misusing their positions to push political beliefs rather than to teach fields of knowledge.
As a reaction to the increasing politicization of the American faculty, the NAS was formed in 1987 to defend the core values of liberal education. Ever since, the AAUP has often been a target for criticism by the NAS. For example, when the AAUP released a paper explaining its understanding of academic freedom in 2007, the NAS critiqued it line by line.
Expectations for the debate were heightened the way the program billed George Mason University law professor Michael Krauss as the “referee.” Would this be akin to one of the famous heavyweight title bouts between Ali and Frazier?
Well, no. It didn’t turn out quite that way. Instead of a sharp clash over clearly defined issues, which is what a debate should be, this debate had relatively little of that. Still, a number of issues about academic freedom were raised and argued. At least it didn’t degenerate into “performance debate,” a pathetic development I wrote about here.
A debate is meant to focus on a specific resolution or question. In his opening remarks, Professor Krauss noted that Nelson and Wood had been asked to address three points. First, exactly what should academic freedom protect? Second, what are the underlying assumptions of academic freedom? And third, what is the proper role of “outsiders” such as administrators, trustees, and public officials, in policing academic freedom?
Professor Nelson spoke first. He deserves credit for accepting an invitation from an organization with which he has often clashed over the years, even if the typical NAS member is about as intimidating as a lamb. This wasn’t Daniel in the lion’s den, but it did entail speaking to a generally unsympathetic audience.
Nelson began with an effort at establishing common ground, noting that AAUP is opposed to speech codes and the proliferation of “identity politics” on college campuses. (When asked in the Q and A session what, exactly, the AAUP had ever done in opposition to those things, he could only say that his organization “moves slowly.”) But after that, his carefully prepared talk scarcely got into the three questions pertaining to academic freedom. He did say that academic freedom isn’t an “absolute” right, but offered no guidance as to where the lines should be drawn—except that students don’t have academic freedom rights.
Sadly, Nelson devoted most of his time to lauding the AAUP and poking jabs at groups that have criticized it, particularly NAS and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. If we had been in a trial, the judge no doubt would have interrupted to say, “Counselor, please stick to the case at hand.”
In his speech, Wood responded to some of Nelson’s attacks, then endeavored to get the debate back to its subject. His principal argument was that Nelson and the AAUP mistakenly think that the only threat to academic freedom is from “outsiders.” Instead, Wood maintained, the greatest threats to (and abuses of) academic freedom today come from faculty members. He raised the case of Rhode Island College student Bill Felkner, who had been assigned by a professor in a social work course to write to members of the state legislature advocating liberal public policy initiatives. When Felkner said that he did not agree with those ideas, his professor told him that the Social Work department had its views and if he disagreed, he should get out. And as for the objection that his course was biased, the professor wrote, “I revel in my biases.”
Wood argued that students have academic freedom rights, including that of being free of bullying such as in that case.
He also argued that it was an abuse of academic freedom for professors to convey highly controversial ideas to students but with the sense that they are accepted as true. In the AAUP’s original statement about academic freedom in 1915, Wood pointed out, it was clear that professors had no right to attempt to indoctrinate their students. (I wrote about such an instance at Wellesley College here.)
With several direct and pointed challenges to his position, how did Nelson reply? Evasively.
With regard to the Rhode Island College case, Nelson lamely said that sometimes disciplines find themselves in a state of flux when ideology takes over. Maybe, but so what? How does that justify the bullying of a student? I would say that no matter what is going on in an academic discipline (if social work really is an academic discipline), its professors should keep their biases to themselves and not browbeat students who hold to different political views.
With regard to the clear admonition to professors to avoid anything that smacks of indoctrination in the 1915 statement, Nelson suggested that because times have changed, that old rule isn’t necessary any longer. Back in 1915, he observed, there was no radio, TV, or Internet and most of the students were from rural backgrounds. His point was that supposedly unsophisticated students of a century ago may have needed protection against professors eager to proselytize, but that rule can be relaxed now that college students are so much more worldly.
I think that’s nonsense; today’s students can be just as gullible as the students of old. Consider, for example, the Wellesley case I mentioned above. Most of the students in the professor’s “Africana Studies” course believed the absurd propaganda about how the ancient Greeks allegedly stole their culture from Africa. It’s just as possible for a professor to deceive his students today as it was in 1915, and the effort to do so is wrong no matter how sophisticated the students might be.
One more argument stood out. Nelson maintained that the policing of academic freedom should remain within the professoriate. He doesn’t want outsiders to play a role, for fear that their involvement will just be an excuse for harassing the scholars he represents. Wood argued, however, that academic freedom should no more be left completely to the professors than war should be left completely to the generals. If outsiders can’t take any action in the face of abuses, many cases would never be addressed.
I would add that the professoriate is not the only group with enough intelligence and concern for the academic enterprise to have a role to play in protecting academic freedom and correcting abuses of it. Nelson’s position here reminds me of a labor union official who might say, “My members hardly ever get out of line, but if that happens, count on the union to handle it.”
The debate went off on a number of tangents, but still the exchange was worthwhile. In my view, Peter Wood made a strong case in favor of restoring the 1915 view of academic freedom. Sometimes “turning the clock back” is a good idea.