Goldstein on Academic Freedom

by Cliopatria

CUNY’s faculty union, the PSC, has issued some unusual statements on academic freedom over the past year. Although the CUNY contract doesn’t give adjuncts the right to reappointment, the PSC claimed that “academic freedom” mandated the reappointment of adjuncts Mohammed Yousry and Susan Rosenberg, who were accused or convicted of crimes associated with political causes the PSC found appealing. (Such a philosophy puts a whole new spin on the criminal nature of the contemporary adjunct system.)

Then, the union demanded that BC president C.M. Kimmich ignore his requirements under the CUNY Bylaws to certify that all professors elected to chair their departments be able to act as spokespersons for the department and college, and immediately approve the election to chair of a sociology prof. Who had written, among other off-the-wall items, that all religious people were “moral retards.” (For good measure, the PSC previewed the Times’ Judy Miller strategy of allowing an extreme voice to essentially speak for the entire institution, claiming that Kimmich, when asked by the media, had no right to comment on the substance of the professor’s remarks.)

Finally, after a New York Sun article appeared quoting several students who appeared to have experienced attempted ideological indoctrination in an Education class, the PSC demanded that the CUNY chancellor publicly condemn the article—prompting a vigorous rebuke by BC student leader Yehuda Katz. (The union seemed blissfully unaware that the legal protections for academic freedom rest under the same First Amendment protections that the PSC wanted the Chancellor to publicly condemn.)

All told, these pronouncements exhibited about the same quality of thought as demonstrated at the union’s recent strike rally, when a senior professor urged sympathy on the grounds that she might not be able to live in her neighborhood of choice on a $118,000 salary. Fortunately, CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein has issued a measured and reasoned defense of academic freedom, demonstrating at the very least that the PSC doesn’t speak for the institution in its bizarre definition of the concept.

In the Chancellor’s words, academic freedom is not exclusively confined to the majority faction among the current faculty, since, “At CUNY, as at other reputable institutions of higher education, academic freedom informs the entire academic community: the free exchange of ideas applies to students choosing a course of study, to faculty pursuing scholarly research and teaching, and to institutions admitting students, appointing faculty, and setting standards.” Accordingly,

the University encourages informed discussion and expects its faculty members to pursue rigorous thinking and debate without restraint. Such an expectation exists for other members of the University community, as well. As faculty express their views, students and administrators must, as well. The former president of the University of Chicago, Robert Maynard Hutchins, himself a champion of academic freedom, offered this description:"Education is a kind of continuing dialogue, and a dialogue assumes different points of view."

Goldstein also dismissed the union’s unfortunate conflation of “academic freedom” with contract demands, and notes that the existence of dissent on campus doesn’t imply an assault on academic freedom (as the union implied). “On the contrary,” he notes, “it is often indicative of an active, and free, exchange of ideas.” It’s ironic, and in a way disheartening, to see an administrator defend the spirit of free exchange on campus more strongly than the faculty union.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jim Williams - 10/19/2005

The union's bullying behavior is ridiculous. A person who makes comments like those Shortell made should not serve as chair, for he is obviously going to create a hostile environment for students and faculty of faith. Shortell is perfectly free to act like a jerk abd put his idiotic comments on the record, but that doesn't mean Brooklyn should make a jerk a department chair. The union's attempt to muzzle KC is even more outrageous!

E. Simon - 10/18/2005

Would it be substantive to point out that the language Chris uses makes him sound like a little Scalia in training? Of course, Scalia could _never_ be accused of being an ideologue. Oh wait, he could be, but then again, at least he could engage in something so mundane as being able to make an argument. But Chris is too good for that, of course.

Robert KC Johnson - 10/18/2005

The Bowen public letter stated that it was inappropriate for Pres. Kimmich to have spoken critically about Shortell's analysis of the moral bearings of religious people. (In that statement, Kimmich also held that Shortell had every right to speak as he pleased, on any issue.) With regard to the Ed case, the Ed Department's public letter to me, which was planned out at the union's "emergency academic freedom" meeting on June 7 and referenced commendably in the summer edition of the union's "newspaper," The Clarion, demanded that I cease speaking publicly about dispositions issues at Brooklyn.

With regard to the chair's position, the union's stance is a puzzling one. According to the CUNY Bylaws, the president must certify that anyone elected as a department chairperson can act as a "spokesperson" for the department and college. That a chairperson doesn't have the right to make public comments that undermine the university's mission was upheld by the 2d Circuit in the Leonard Jeffries case. And, to quote the Sun from June 8, "a senior program officer at the AAUP, Robert Kreiser, questioned the extent to which a department chairman — who holds an essentially administrative post — is covered by the protections of academic freedom. He said a college administration may not want to have as chairman someone whose views 'are outside the mainstream' of the department or the college."

It might be that CUNY's Bylaws regarding the election of chairpersons violate academic freedom. And it might be that the Jeffries decision violated academic freedom. But it seems to me unrealistic and best and dangerous at worst to claim, as the PSC has done, that "academic freedom" demanded that Pres. Kimmich (of whom, as is known, I'm no fan) ignore both the Bylaws and relevant Court rulings on the matter and certify Shortell's election without considering the Bylaws mandates.

Jacob paul segal - 10/17/2005

I don't see it. When has the union told anyone to stop speaking? The issue of Shortell is whether someone should be denied a chair position, duly elected by a department, because of a highly controversial statement. The union has never said Shortell can't be critized.

BTW conseratives are constantly attacking left or radical students for being political correct and attacking conservative professors. Is that an attempt to silence left-wing students?

Ralph E. Luker - 10/17/2005

Chris, I would appreciate it if you would make contributions of substance to discussion here at Cliopatria. If you can't, I would appreciate it if you would keep your insults to yourself.

Robert KC Johnson - 10/17/2005

Thanks for the kind words!

Robert KC Johnson - 10/17/2005

Indeed. Of the two sides in these debates, the only one that has demanded that people cease speaking was the union.

chris l pettit - 10/17/2005

this is the usual pot and kettle stuff from KC...until he actually abandons his own ideological ignorance, I still do not see how he can be taken seriously...too many axes to grind, too little critical examination of his own gaps in credibility...

CP

Christopher Newman - 10/17/2005

Make that "All pigs are equally academically free, but some pigs are more academically free than others."

Christopher Newman - 10/17/2005

Oh, come on. The union is flying their defense of Shortell's ridiculous statements under the banner of a defense of academic freedom. The union quite clearly implies that legitimate criticisms of Shortell (which they deem "attacks") are attempts to silence or chill free inquiry and academic freedom, and by that characterization they ignore the fact that such "attacks" are *themselves* exercises in academic freedom. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that they advocate some version of "All pigs have equally academically free, but some pigs are more academically free than others."

Jacob paul segal - 10/17/2005

Why is the union undermining academic freedom if its supports union members when 1. a chair is attacked for his statements 2. A professor is attacked by students. The union is not attacking the freedom of speech of students if it disagrees with the the claims of the students. No one is saying students can't object to professors, the question is what should be done about it. In the case of the sociology chair, the issue is plainly should a professor lose a chair because of something he/she wrote? Could not be seen as chilling academic freedom? If the union asks the chancellor to condemn a newspaper article, is that not just more "speech." Disagree with these positions if you want, but the union is hardly attacking academic freedom or freedom of speech.