Aug 8, 2005

The PSC Strikes Again

by Cliopatria

Ellen Schrecker (last heard from making the fantastic claim that untenured faculty might not feel comfortable, given the current ideological climate on campuses, speaking out against U.S. military involvement overseas) and the Professional Staff Congress (last heard from making the even more fantastic claim that academic freedom protects those CUNY adjuncts accused or convicted of crimes associated with political causes with which the PSC agrees) have teamed forces in this month’s Clarion, the PSC’s monthly tabloid. The focus of their insights? “Academic freedom under attack at CUNY.”

Professor Schrecker’s article continues her slate’s refrain from recent AAUP elections: any outside criticism of the academy violates academic freedom. “This system only works,” she cautions, “if the men and women who enforce the norms of the academic profession are academics themselves.” So, what should be done when (as recently occurred at Brooklyn College) a department elects as its chair someone who wrote that all religious people are “moral retards” and rejoiced at the political effects of the higher death rate of older voters? Apparently, we should take solace from the fact that such events show what happens when “the men and women who enforce the norms of the academic profession are academics themselves.”

Unlike Jonathan Cole, who at least conceded that humanities and social science departments might substitute non-academic criteria for merit in personnel and curricular matters (even if he was unwilling to propose a solution to the problem), in Professor Schrecker’s mind, everything’s as it should be in the academy. So what accounts for the concerns? “Right-wing propaganda” and a “scandalously one-sided debate.” Perhaps the debate has been “scandalously one-sided” because Professor Schrecker’s arguments are so weak?

The Clarion also contains a pull-out section that goes beyond even Professor Schrecker’s claim that academic freedom means that academics should be free from outside criticism. A few months ago, I published a piece in Inside Higher Ed about Brooklyn’s School of Education, which has used a new theory called “dispositions” to individually assess the commitment of each of its students to promote “social justice.” The issue also generated a lengthy, multiple-sourced investigatory article in the New York Sun.

In response, the School of Education faculty sent me a letter (with signatories). The SOE document opened with a couple of obvious factual errors; moved on to concede that the issue involved state and federal educational policies; and concluded—all in the name of upholding academic freedom—by demanding that I stop commenting publicly on the matter. (I pointed out the peculiar nature of this request here.) The tabloid’s article mentioned the SOE letter, but the reporters—in an unintentional illustration of the PSC’s true beliefs on academic freedom—didn’t even bother to contact me for a response.

So, in the PSC/Schrecker worldview: professors representing the majority viewpoint on CUNY campuses cannot be criticized from the outside; and dissenters from within the faculty cannot publicly challenge the majority’s agenda. Some might call that an Orwellian conception of academic freedom. But we all know that Orwell was just a right-wing propagandist.

Erin O'Connor has more on the issue at ACTA's blog.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Sherman Jay Dorn - 8/8/2005

You wrote, based on the whole issue, So, in the PSC/Schrecker worldview: professors representing the majority viewpoint on CUNY campuses cannot be criticized from the outside; and dissenters from within the faculty cannot publicly challenge the majority’s agenda.

Er, um, no. The pullout section didn't explicitly focus on what you wrote, KC, and it never said that the Sun didn't have a right to write about CUNY. It said that the Sun pieces were unfair and inaccurate and that the Chancellor's overwhelming silence and pressure on Shortell was wrong. The thrust of the insert was a criticism of the central administration, and it gave the central administration a chance to respond (which the administration decided not to take up).

I'm aware of the conflicting factual claims about the SOE that began with your IHE piece. So it's plausible that one subtext in the focus on the SOE allegations and counter-claims is a criticism of your writings. But there's a difference between saying that you're wrong and saying that you can't criticize existing policy. And, at least in the Clarion, there's nothing in there about the second. All that I will say on the meta-debate that you're continuing is that there appear to be a whole lot of rhetoric glass houses in New York. I know that's par for the course with the Big Apple, but it looks a bit different from a few hundred miles away.

Sherman Jay Dorn - 8/8/2005

You write, I've read (I believe) everything that Schrecker has published on the issue of academic freedom; all have been consistent defenses of the current ideological majority on campuses.

I've read a good chunk of her work, if not all, and I don't come out with the same reading in any way. For one, I'm puzzled how No Ivory Tower is a comment or defense of the current zeitgeist, both because it was written 20 years ago and also because (assuming she might have been speaking indirectly about the mid-80s) the clear message was, "Don't let this happen again." That seems clear and also clearly content-neutral.

More generally, though, your interpretation is considerably more speculative than than most intellectual history I've read (though admittedly I'm not an intellectual historian). Of course she knows the events at BC (could you expect New York academics not to gossip about other institutions?) and she was writing with that context, but you're reading far more intentionality into the piece than is warranted, for several reasons. First, Schrecker is primarily concerned with the structures of university actions and outside pressures. You disagree with her perspective, but criticizing her emphasis on structures is different from arguing that there is a coherent "Schrecker-and-PSC-leadership" position. Second, the piece is just too short to wring much out of other than the fundamental argument that's been at the core of her historical scholarship. You could take the same piece and plug it into the house organ of almost any other chapter where there's been a campus controversy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Schrecker HAS written essentially the same piece for other occasions, in which case her primary sin here is lack of originality.

Now, let me go look at that PDF of the pullout section...

Robert KC Johnson - 8/8/2005

Schrecker's article begins, "Brooklyn College does not have a good record in the academic freedom department."

Sorry about the link--for some reason, the PSC provided two links for the Clarion. Here's the second link:
http://psc-cuny.org/Clarion%20July%2005spread.pdf

Robert KC Johnson - 8/8/2005

Sorry for the lack of clarity--by Schrecker's slate, I was referring to her slate of candidates in the AAUP election, that was referenced in the article to which I linked.

As the issue of the Clarion was devoted to the twin issues of the Sociology chair's issue at BC and the Ed issue at BC, it seems pretty clear that Schrecker's article has to be viewed through this context. I've been told by several sources that she was quite familiar with the lines of controversy at BC when she wrote.

I've read (I believe) everything that Schrecker has published on the issue of academic freedom; all have been consistent defenses of the current ideological majority on campuses. (She made similar comments during the MEALAC fight at Columbia and during her run for the AAUP's general council position, and I was equally critical of her on both occasions then.

Sherman Jay Dorn - 8/7/2005

Erratum: The first paragraph should read "any other column in it" rather than "anything other column in it."

Sherman Jay Dorn - 8/7/2005

KC,

I'm trying to figure out why the tone of this entry borders on the hysterical. Since Schrecker teaches at private Yeshiva, it's hard to see where the phrase "her slate's refrain" comes from. I'm assuming she was asked to write a short piece for this in-house organ about academic freedom and had little knowledge of anything other column in it. (Incidentally, the PDF doesn't include the pull-out.)

Nor is it clear why a short column has to concern itself with every incident you consider newsworthy on a campus. If you and she were at a forum together, of course I'd expect her to answer the broader question of accountability you'd probably ask. But here, you're implying that she's wrong simply because she doesn't discuss the sociology chair controversy at BC.

Finally, your inference that Schrecker believes "everything’s as it should be in the academy" is simply not grounded in the column anywhere. Her argument is that the history of higher education provides ample reason to leave accountability in the hands of academics. There is plenty of room to disagree with that stance, but nowhere does she say or even hint that academics are perfect.

I'm not surprised that New York's supercharged higher-ed politics now might tempt someone involved in the debates to read personal flaws into anything written on the subject from other New York academics. But this invective neither becomes you nor contributes to serious debate over the larger issues.