Joan Scott and the AAUP

by Cliopatria

No AAUP committee is more important than Committee A, which investigates allegations of institutional abuse of the AAUP’s academic freedom guidelines. Princeton’s Joan Scott recently concluded a stint as chair of the committee, for which she remains, through 2008, a consultant. In light of the definition of “academic freedom” offered yesterday, in print, by Scott, she should step down from her position with the committee.

By this stage, we all know the background to the story of the AAUP and the proposed boycott of Israeli academics. The organization, along with many other groups, condemned a British teachers’ union for passing a resolution boycotting two Israeli universities. But then, for reasons never convincingly explained, the AAUP elected to schedule a conference on what its president, Roger Bowen, patronizingly termed this “most nettlesome subject.” The decision seemed curious: as UIC’s Peter Shalen observed at the time, “the AAUP does not normally organize conferences devoted to issues on which it has already taken irreversible positions, especially when those positions are simple reaffirmations of its core principles.” That more than one-third of those scheduled to attend the gathering had backed the anti-Israel boycott gave the appearance of the AAUP retreating from its firm anti-boycott position. Then, when the organization distributed an article by a Holocaust denier as part of the pre-conference reading material, the gathering was postponed.

Enter Professor Scott, who lashed out in the comments section of a recent Inside Higher Ed piece. “Critics” of the conference, she contended, were “lobbyists on behalf of the current Israeli regime (or fellow travellers [sic] of those lobbyists)," and needed to be identified as such. This “lobby” consisted of “people (pro-Israel occupation) who believe that any representation of a point of view other than theirs is ananthema [sic]"; academics who defined academic freedom as “the freedom to listen only to those who agree with them.” Those who protested the conference behaved unprofessionally, as “they did not protest quietly, but alerted entire list serves of lobbyists who began to campaign for closing down the conference.” Remarks by the University of Illinois’ Cary Nelson (hardly a neocon) critical of the conference, Scott maintained, “violate AAUP procedure and harm the reputation of AAUP,” since his comments were “based not on careful inquiry, but on polemic.” In conclusion, Scott lamented, “those of us dedicated to the protection of academic freedom can only mourn its loss on this occasion.”

Ponder the implications of these remarks. Without citing evidence, Scott publicly maintained that:

--professors who disagreed with her were fellow travelers of “pro-Israel occupation” lobbyists;

--professors who disagreed with her wanted to squelch all ideas other than their own;

--those who disagree with AAUP positions apparently violate AAUP procedure by either informing non-academic groups of their concerns or by (as Nelson did) speaking out publicly in a way that Scott deems “based not on careful inquiry, but on polemic.”

This is the conception of “academic freedom” held by the figure who, until recently, was the AAUP’s point person on the issue? The organization should ask all its officials to review its 1940 statement on academic freedom and tenure, lest others join Scott in turning on their heads the organization’s basic principles.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Robert KC Johnson - 2/11/2006

By Scott's definition of "fellow travelers," one could say that proponents of the conference were "fellow travelers" of the Palestinian Authority. I admit that I haven't read all of Prof. Scott's postings, but I've never encountered her using the phrase "fellow travelers" to describe any other group of scholars whose position coincided with the political interests of a state other than Israel. Would she consider academics who signed petitions for the nuclear freeze in the early 1980s "fellow travelers" of the Soviet Union?

Having read the SPME criticisms of the conference, and also those of other academic critics of the conference, my sense is that the central argument against the conference was the AAUP sponsorship of it and the remarkably high percentage (nearly 40%) of the slots given to proponents of the boycott against Israeli universities. I can't imagine, say, the AAUP sponsoring a conference on its 1940 academic freedom and tenure resolution and then granting 40% of the slots at the conference to Republican legislators who call for the teaching of intelligent design or for-profit university administrators who oppose the institution of tenure. It seems to me perfectly legitimate for AAUP members to ask why the organization chose to sponsor a conference on an issue that it had already decided--and also to ask why so many supporters of a boycott against Israeli and only Israeli academics were invited. If the AAUP's real intent was to hear from the "other side," why invite only supporters of a boycott against Israeli academics and not, say, backers of a boycott against Cuban academics?

Robert KC Johnson - 2/11/2006

Academic freedom obviously grants Prof. Scott the right to say anything she wants about the conference. The issue is her status as past chair and current consultant to Committee A, which investigates allegations of academic freedom abuse by colleges and universities.

In her remarks, Scott claimed that Cary Nelson violated AAUP procedures by criticizing the conference. She strongly implied that academic critics of the conference who worked with non-academic groups behaved unprofessionally. And she labeled all academic critics of the conference (there was no qualifier in her remarks) as "fellow travelers"--what some might term a McCarthyite term.

It's my belief that the AAUP should ensure that members of Committee A uphold the organization's academic freedom principles in their writings and actions--otherwise, how could committee members possible investigate others on the point? I find it hard to square the conception of academic freedom offered in Scott's remarks with the AAUP's 1940 statement.

Andre Mayer - 2/11/2006

One out of three, I think.

I don't love this use of "fellow travelers" (a bit, well, polemical) but it's not illegitimate to point out that these scholars are in some sense doing the work of certain political interests.

And they didn't just disagree with Scott -- they opposed a conference at which multiple viewpoints were to be represented, thus in fact squelching ideas other than their own.

The third point is well taken. Once you start bringing in holocaust deniers, you reall;y can't appeal to standards of careful inquiry.

And by the way, a lot of people evidently do find this issue nettlesome. Who's patronizing whom?

Israel aside, this kind of issue is tricky. I just read a review of the Nicholas Murray Butler biography taking him to task for sending a Columbia representative to a university anniversary in Nazi Germany: yet I have known historians who regretted voting to strip the collaborator Bernard Fay of his honorary memberships in American historical societies.

Chris Bray - 2/11/2006

...for comments from Grant Jones, Frederick Thomas, John Lederer, and Christopher Newman, who will reveal that I am against freedom and Western Civilization.

Chris Bray - 2/11/2006

Granting for the sake of argument that Professor Scott's allegations were reckless -- and I haven't reviewed them myself, so I can't pretend to judge -- how do her comments in an online forum constitute an assault on academic freedom? As far as I can tell from your post, she has not attempted any sort of formal action against the critics of the conference; she merely made comments. Mere comments, even when misinformed or hostile, do not constitute an attack on freedom; rather, they are a manifestation of freedom. She made comments; the targets of those comments have the opportunity to answer. Freedom.

A consistent theme in the several discussions about freedom of speech and thought that have taken place at this blog recently is the conflation of formal and informal action. A professor criticizes people who disagree with her, so she is against freedom; responding to deliberately provocative cartoons in a newspaper, communities of Muslims institute a boycott of Danish products, and hold up offensive signs, so they are against freedom. It is an assault on freedom, somehow, to freely criticize the free actions and statements of others.

People who speak against things that other people have said are using their own freedom -- nothing more.

Unless there is some formal action Professor Scott took against the people she criticized -- asking that they be denied tenure, say, or seeking some other sort of formal sanctions -- then I don't see the "freedom" issue.