Neither faculty or "Students do not shed their
constitutional rights...at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Having read Professor Hayward’s now notorious October 2013
blog post[1],
it is clear he takes delight in rattling cages. Nevertheless, some of the issues
raised could serve as interesting jumping off points for discussion. For
example, I have always objected to being lumped together with other Caucasians
when it comes to ethnic identity. But assuming that he maintains an atmosphere
of civility, it is difficult to understand how it is even imaginable that his
comments rise to the level of “hate speech”. That said, I would love to listen
to the debate that might ensue if students were asked to critically consider the Loretta sketch from Monty Python’s
Life of Brian [http://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c]. One wonders whether this video (or
even showing this video in class) is a form of hate speech?
But really, that is not the issue here, rather there are two
issues: the defense of academic freedom and the importance of training our
students to learn to defend their positions, and critique the positions of
others, based on empirical evidence and rigorous and logical argument.
Why does this matter?
Primarily because as faculty we are called upon to present and analyze a
wide range of potentially disconcerting (and perhaps even threatening) facts,
phenomena, and their implications. A short list, off the top of my head, includes
the evolutionary bases and outcomes of sexual selection and the various forms
of social organization[2],
the dynamics of immunity and the social outcomes arising from the refusal to
vaccinate children (which could be seen as a form of child abuse), the origin
of the universe and the elements of life, not to mention evolutionary
mechanisms in general (which could offend a range of more literalist religious
groups), the generation, costs and benefits of genetically modified organisms
(including, in the future, humans), as well as the implications of social
policy in the context of feeding the world’s population, the ramifications,
positive, negative, economic and sociopolitical of climate change. Given the
importance of social biology in species as deeply socialized as humans, one
might even imagine a discussion of the origins of customs ranging from “honor”
killings to the personal and political subjugation of women or the origins of
slavery and its modern variants (which could be seen as “disrespecting” certain
cultures.) What will the position of the
BFA be if faculty are publicly denounced by a group of devout students
demanding retraction or the punishment of the faculty member?
It is in this
context that Paul Chinowsky’s remarks (presumably made as chair of the BFA
rather than as an individual faculty member) - assuming that they have been
accurately reported (“If any (other) faculty member said this, we would
find ourselves in a dean’s
office or possibly on suspension for writing this. ... The question is, are we
going to allow this or condone this from someone in our own faculty?” ),
seem, at least to me, to be overtly threatening, and certainly not
dispassionately supportive of faculty who hold potentially unpopular or
contrarian views.
Is
this an appropriate role or position for a BFA chair
to take, given that this a chair rather than a CEO position. Am I to be marched
to the Dean’s office (perhaps even by the BFA chair) or
not allowed to teach until my views become consistent with the current
orthodoxy, or rather the orthodoxy imposed by a vocal subgroup of the student
body? I suggest that these are extremely
serious questions that strike at the heart of faculty freedom, and the
viability of intelectual life on
campus, and I am shocked that they have been addressed in such a cavalier
manner — when speaking for the BFA (and the faculty at large) a more
circumspect and supportive stance would seem appropriate.
[2] Pity for example the poor slime mold
that becomes part of the stalk rather than a spore cell, and so sacrifices
itself for the good of the community. Of
course we probably should also talk about the internal and external mechanisms
involved in the suppression of social cheating, but that is another course.
No comments:
Post a Comment