The OAH and Free Speech ...
At least two of the four members of the OAH committee appointed by my friend, Jim Horton, are long-term professional and personal friends of mine, but I'm afraid that I have to say that the committee made no effort to look at the kinds of concerns that libertarian or conservative historians have expressed about the chilling effect of speech codes on academic freedom. You can read the committee's report here. Despite the fact that both Beito and I contacted David Montgomery in re the question of speech codes, it is obvious that it made no effort to investigate questions other than those which might occur to a historian on the left. It is a huge opportunity missed by the blinders, if I may coin a phrase, of"political correctness." Shame on the OAH and its committee!
comments powered by Disqus
Robert KC Johnson - 11/13/2004
Even if this were the case, however, I take strong exception to the committee's labeling government funding for "traditional" subfields of American history or government oversight of education programs that it already funds (Title VI) as threats to academic freedom; these issues do not involve academic freedom at all.
Oscar Chamberlain - 11/13/2004
I understand your disappointment, but the committee seems to have focused with some consistency on the dangers posed by the actions of the government and outside groups. That leads me to wonder if the committee understood its mission was to focus on xternal threats to academia.
If so, then what you had hoped for would have required the committee expanding its own mandate. That's something that most academic committees tend to avoid, for better or worse. (I'm sure there are exceptions, but I wonder how many have ended well?)
For what its worth, I think two of the issues that addressed, the access to records and all the problems connected with visas are more important than intradepartmental politics.
I am not saying that there should not be an attempt to do what you hoped they would do. I think it would a good thing. But you really haven't shown if this was a failure of the committee or of its mandate.
Charles V. Mutschler - 11/12/2004
The article is in the Chronicle's opinion section. The title is "Liberal Groupthink is Anti-Intellectual," by Mark Bauerlein, who is at Emory. His thesis sounds plausible enough. If there is no real disagreement, and no real discussion, intellectual decay sets in, because no one is forced to improve their scholarship and arguments. While not specifically addressing history, Bauerlein does state that the problem of intellectual one-sidedness is especially evident in the humanities.
I'll let you read, think, and draw your own conclusions. If you don't subscribe to the _Chronicle_, you can reach this article via their web page through the "Arts and Letters Today" column. Bauerlein's article is a few days back, but near the top.
Charles V. Mutschler - 11/12/2004
Thanks for the link, Mr. Luker. For another take on this same subject, readers may want to go to the current _Chronicle of Higher Education_, both print and on-line versions. This same subject is under discussion there as well, though in the larger context of "Why aren't there more conservatives in academe?" The conclusion is probably not what many of us want to rtead in the wake of the elections, but I think there is food for thought.
I'll try and find the computer address.
- Historian Allan Lichtman who’s predicted 30 years of presidential elections correctly is doubling down on a Trump win
- National Book Award semifinalist Heather Ann Thompson says the war on crime started with LBJ
- David McCullough's next book will focus on generations of Northwest pioneers
- British historian Sheila Lecoeur is on trial for defamation
- Jim Downs laments that Americans still aren’t being taught LGBT history