Faculty Reps Declare War on Their Students
The common thread in the ruminations of Bowen and Krase? A belief that students have no right, under any circumstances, to publicly challenge the arguments of professors who represent the ideological majority at CUNY. The articles that Bowen wanted the head of the university to denounce publicly consisted primarily of feedback from students (at least eight of whom spoke out on the Sociology and Education controversies). In Bowen’s version of the academy, students publicly criticizing either a professor’s questionable in-class behavior or deliberately inflammatory out-of-class writings constitute, ipso facto, an assault on academic freedom. The perspective of Krase, if anything, is even more bizarre. This former department chairman and named professor at Brooklyn described the pro-religious tolerance students as “fascists” who “pined for the days when Brooklyn was whiter if not (in their opinion) brighter.” Apparently Krase has never run across any minorities who were people of faith.
In this environment came a remarkable defense of students’ right to express an opinion on academic issues from Brooklyn student Yehuda Katz, a two-time candidate for president of Student Government and former editor of the campus newspaper, The Excelsior.
Katz recently issued a public letter on academic freedom. On the one hand, it’s a little embarrassing to see that the thinking of an undergraduate is so transparently superior intellectually to the thoughts of the elected head of the faculty union and a former department chairman. On the other hand, Katz’s letter testifies to the high quality of CUNY students, and, perhaps, to the good instruction that selective undergraduates can achieve at the institution. I’ve reprinted the letter in full, since it’s not posted elsewhere to date.
AN OPEN LETTER TO CHANCELLOR GOLDSTEIN, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CUNY, and BARBARA BOWEN, PRESIDENT OF THE CUNY PSCTo Whom It May Concern:
Academic freedom at Brooklyn College is under attack. In the guise of protecting academic freedom, a substantial contingent of the faculty has been working to undermine the right of faculty members, and especially students, to dissent about issues that affect them directly.
In an open letter to Chancellor Goldstein, Barbara Bowen, the President of the PSC, referred to an article by the New York Sun. She refers to the Sun as 'a right-wing newspaper' and the article as a report 'on the views Professor Shortell had expressed in his non-academic writing.'
In fact, that 'article' was an editorial by the New York Sun, which had previously taken a position on Shortell's writings with no response by the PSC.
Bowen then says that the 'report' was followed by another in the Daily News. That 'report' was not about Shortell's views, but about student reaction to the news in the wake of the Sun editorial.
In an attempt to further drum up evidence of a conspiracy, Bowen claims that President Kimmich, 'contrary to the normal procedure following departmental elections' wrote a letter to the New York Sun about an 'investigation' he had ordered.
As you know, according to the CUNY Bylaws, the college president is responsible for approving departmental chairpersons, affirming that they can 'act effectively as the departmental administrator and spokesperson and as a participant in the formation, development, and interpretation of college-wide interest and policy.'
Bowen's quotation of President Kimmich's letter to the Sun is highly selective. Her implication is that Kimmich would be investigating the 'offensive' nature of Shortell's writings. In addition to the widely circulated quotation calling the material offensive, Kimmich said: 'While his right to express these views is protected, what is not protected is the injection of views like these into the classroom or into any administrative duties he might assume as chair of the sociology department. I have convened a committee of three high-ranking college officials and asked them to investigate the situation and report back to me. While there are no specific complaints against Shortell, the review will preserve the rights of all involved.'
As is clear from the unedited letter, Kimmich was investigating whether Shortell engaged in unprotected 'injection of views like these into the classroom.' He specifically states that the review would preserve Shortell's rights, and affirmed Shortell's right to hold the views while simultaneously serving as a professor and even as a chairperson.
Bowen's letter also refers to a 'front page attack' on Professor Priya Parmar. Actually, the article was a detailed discussion about the use of dispositions in grading students. It included statements from Brooklyn College as well as statements from students who were involved in a dispute with Professor Parmar. Parmar refused to be interviewed, passing the reporter along to a college spokesperson, who was quoted.
The article also discussed the allegations of several students who told the Sun that they had been aggrieved by Parmar's behavior in the classroom. Parmar was offered an opportunity to respond by the reporter, but declined the offer.
Bowen's letter calls the article an 'attack' and decries that fact that there has been no public denunciation of the article and its contents.
In her demands, Bowen calls on the Chancellor to condemn"the May 31 article in The New York Sun,"'Disposition' Emerges as Issue at Brooklyn College."
Put in perspective, Bowen is asking the Chancellor to denounce a New York City newspaper for publishing an article and several editorials it deemed newsworthy. She is also asking the Chancellor to denounce those who were quoted in the article (mostly students) for expressing their points of view to the newspaper.
This is unacceptable. Students and faculty members should have the right to speak freely about points of dissent they have with faculty members, other students, or even the University itself. Last time we checked, the principles of academic freedom do not impose a gag rule on those who wish to make themselves heard in the press.
Quite the contrary, the principles of academic freedom demand a free and open debate on issues of importance, like those discussed here. Those principles envision a climate where dissent is welcomed, irrespective of the venue in which that dissent is presented.
Unfortunately, President Bowen's letter demands that faculty members be free to express controversial viewpoints, and that students and local media be silenced in response. Her letter clearly expresses a lack of respect for the academic freedom, as well as the academic rights of students. It expresses a lack of respect for the basic right to free press that we enjoy in a free society.
We hope that you will clearly indicate your opposition to attempts to silence dissent, regardless of whether their source is protected under the PSC contract or simply by the United States Constitution.
Update, 10.49pm: At the Torch, Greg Lukianoff has a lengthy analysis, which I share, on academic freedom and the recent ACE announcement. Perhaps Bowen and Krase might want to take a look at it before they next claim that academic freedom requires either denouncing a free press or describing proponents of religious tolerance as"fascists."