Subject: Academic Freedom Issues Discussion Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:46:56 -0600 Message-ID: <BDD0A3EABE40F04A8C7200805EDE5A6A0219EF68@PEPSI.uwec.edu> From: "Nowlan, Robert A." <RANOWLAN@uwec.edu>
In reference to recent (and continuing) discussion of academic freedom
issues on this listserve I recommend (as I did last fall) against any
unnecessarily defensive response. While these threats are real, and
serious, we should keep in mind that this state of affairs is not at all
new (just recall the so-called 'pc wars' and the virtual moral panic
generated about the perceived spread of multiculturalism not that many
years ago). We can, because 'we' (that is progressive academic
intellectuals and educators) have faced this often enough before, draw
upon a considerable history of critical opposition to, and refutation
of, just this kind of argument. We need to continue to critique the
'bias' that lies behind the notion of a normatively 'unbiased' approach
to knowledge and to teaching (especially in fields where contests over
positions and concepts exist at the very crux of what defines serious
intellectual inquiry), as well as the bias that lies behind the notion
of externally imposing an artificial 'balance' 'among biases'
represented within the academy . At the same time, our focus should
continue not upon how we 'manage' (our) biases in teaching, but rather
on how-and why-we deliberately work from 'our own biases', how (well)
moreover we account for these, and how effectively (including justly and
fairly) we engage with multiple other biases from the vantage points our
biases provide us. I've taught 20 straight years now at the college and
university level, and all that time from an openly 'biased' --
progressive, radical, socialist, Marxist, not to mention gay/queer --
set of vantage points (in relation to fields always replete with biases
and students always represented myriad biases). While recurrently
confronting opposition (sometimes substantial) in doing so (teaching as
I have/from where I come from), I have always found that being
well-prepared, and taking the time, as need be, to set forth a thorough,
considered argument for the validity, even the necessity, of engaging as
I do, proves crucial, as does a readiness to engage in a similar kind of
simultaneous critique of the pretenses and conclusions, along with the
ends advanced and interests served, by those who would seek to restrict
me. Anticipating this kind of opposition to what I represent, as well
as other forms of resistance, while even welcoming and encouraging
critical engagement with these in my classes/with my students, as part
and parcel of what teaching and learning is and should be, also always
seems to me, at least (and often most of my students too), to prove
highly productive. Certainly we, within sfpj, should support each other
in the face of this kind of opposition/prospective opposition to us
proceeding on the bases our 'left' political biases provide us in this
'right' nation, but I recommend making sure we envision doing so
(supporting each other) in a strongly confident way, such that we
approach this task prepared to seize the offensive, and to continue to
push forward, aggressively, with what we think, believe, and are able
and willing to explain and justify, according to the intellectual,
disciplinary, and ethical and political standards to which we
passionately adhere.
Bob Nowlan
________________________________
From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu] On Behalf Of Hale, C. Kate
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:39 PM
To: Christian, Donald P.; Pope, Karen O.; SFPJ
Subject: On a related topic: Ward Churchill at Whitewater
I pulled this from the Leader-Telegram online. Note particularly
paragraphs 8 & following-these are our state legislators (well, ok, not
Eau Claire's) (but imagine Dave Zien's likely response if it were us and
not UW Whitewater). I've been wondering whether there oughtn't to be
some responses from the other campuses on this . . .
Vis a vis the teach-in: I know Rick Richmond has been tracking academic
freedom issues on the SFPJ website. Perhaps Robert Jensen would be a
good keynoter for the teach-in (or John Nichols again). And I (it's
probably obvious by now) DO think Karen's suggestion is an excellent
one.
Kate Hale
English
http://www.leadertelegram.com/story.asp?id=52240
Speaker cleared for university talk
Embattled Colorado professor to lecture at UW-Whitewater
The Associated Press
MADISON (AP) - A Colorado professor who likened Sept. 11 victims to
Nazis will be allowed to speak at UW-Whitewater next month, a decision
the chancellor said was repugnant but necessary under First Amendment
principles of free speech.
The decision Thursday sparked outrage among state lawmakers, who said
they would appeal to the UW System president to intervene and would also
make other formal protests to block the speech by Ward Churchill.
UW-Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller said in a statement he decided to
honor an invitation for Churchill to speak at the campus 40 miles
southeast of Madison despite the controversy over comments the
University of Colorado professor made about the Sept. 11 attacks.
Miller laid out six stipulation he said must be met to ensure the March
1 would go off as planned, including assurances the university can
guarantee the safety of the campus, visitors and Churchill.
While calling Churchill's comments "grossly inappropriate," Miller said
it would be up to students, staff and others to judge the professor's
comments.
"I have worked to make an informed decision, not the popular or
politically expedient one," Miller said.
He also said in a statement no taxpayer money will be used to pay
Churchill's honorarium or travel expenses. Miller pledged to help raise
private money to cover the costs of the speech and to make a personal
contribution.
State Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, began circulating a formal
resolution Thursday to condemn Miller's decision that he hoped the full
Legislature would vote on next week. Nass said the decision defied
common sense and questioned why the university would allow someone to
speak on campus that had spewed what he called anti-American hate
speech.
"The bottom line is common sense has to prevail here," said Nass, who
graduated from Whitewater in 1978 and received his master's degree in
1990. "This is hate speech. The chancellor is saying it's OK to bring
hate speech to the university so long as it does not cost the university
money. That is ridiculous."
Churchill came under fire after it became widely reported that an essay
he wrote likened workers in the World Trade Center to "little
Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who ensured the smooth
running of the Nazi system.
Churchill made the comparison in an essay written hours after the 2001
attacks and later revised for a book.
The ethnic studies professor said in Boulder, Colo., Tuesday that his
essay referred to "technocrats" who participate in what he calls
repressive American policies around the world.
The essay and follow-up book attracted little attention until Churchill
was invited to speak last month at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y.,
which later canceled his talk out of security concerns. Other schools
have canceled speeches by the professor out of similar worries.
Churchill, a longtime Indian Movement activist, was invited to speak at
the campus six months ago on the topic of racism and Indians. He did not
return a call left at the university Thursday or respond to an e-mail.
Miller laid out several concerns about the speech in a letter he sent
to Churchill before making his decision. Churchill wrote back that he
was "entirely unprepared to undergo a personal interrogation" regarding
his "worthiness" to deliver a public lecture on an entirely different
topic than he wrote about in the controversial essay.
He warned he would still expect his full honorarium if the university
canceled his speech and would use at least part of the money to visit
Whitewater on his own to speak.
The controversy and Churchill's subsequent comments prompted the
University of Colorado's Board of Regents to investigate whether it can
remove Churchill.
On 2/14/05 12:21 PM, "Christian, Donald P." <CHRISTDP@uwec.edu> wrote:
> Karen - funny you should mention it. I emailed David Jones about this
last
> week, after the panel discussion, and he thought it would be a good
thing to
> pursue a campus discussion. We might frame this as how facuty are
aware of and
> "manage" their political biases in the classroom. Susan Turell does a
> masterful job of this. Kent Syverson also might be a good
participant. I'd
> be happy working with a group of faculty to structure such a dialogue.
>
> Don
>
> From: Pope, Karen O.
> Sent: Mon 2/14/2005 11:44 AM
> To: Hale, C. Kate; SFPJ; Christian, Donald P.
> Subject: RE: Bills in several states aim to counter perceived
liberalism of
> college professors
>
> All:
> This has come up in quite a few discussion we've had lately, and is
now in the
> "press" so often, I wonder if we shouldn't have a panel or a
discussion during
> the teach-in on academic discourse relative to the 1st amendment, but
also
> relative to creating a campus climate for dialog and scholarly
inquiry? It
> seems Marty Wood and Rick Richmond have both sent previous posts on
this, too.
>
> Just a thought,
> Karen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu]
> On Behalf Of Hale, C. Kate
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:20 AM
> To: SFPJ; Christian, Donald P.
> Subject: FW: Bills in several states aim to counter perceived
liberalism of
> college professors
>
>
> Heads up!
>
> Kate
>
>
> C. Kate Hale, Ph.D.
> UWEC Dept. of English
> Office: 617 Hibbard Hall
> 715-836-2761
> halecl@uwec.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Fantle [mailto:wfantle@sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Sat 12-Feb-05 10:49 AM
> To: Hale, C. Kate; btg@mydnet.com; jdrsks@sbcglobal.net;
> jdernbach@state.pa.us; langw@uwstout.edu; mthree@charter.net;
> guitar8@sbcglobal.net; zoltan@igc.org
>
> Subject: Bills in several states aim to counter perceived liberalism
of
> college professors
>
> Last update: February 12, 2005 at 6:37 AM Bills in several states aim
to
> counter perceived liberalism of college professors Associated Press
Published
> February 12, 2005
>
> WESTERVILLE, Ohio - College sophomore Charis Bridgman tends to keep
quiet in
> class if she thinks her professor might disagree with her
Christian-influenced
> ideas.
>
> The 19-year-old says schools such as her Otterbein College in suburban
> Columbus should be a place for open discussion, but she feels some
professors
> make students afraid to speak up.
>
> ``They might chastise me, or not even listen to my opinion or give me
a chance
> to explain,'' she said.
>
> Professors would have to include diverse opinions in classrooms under
> legislation being pushed in Ohio and several other states by
conservatives who
> fear too many professors indoctrinate young minds with liberal
propaganda.
> Such measures have had little success getting approval in the other
states.
>
> ``I see students coming out having gone in without any ideological
leanings
> one way or another, coming out with an indoctrination of a lot of
left-wing
> issues,'' said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Mumper, a former high school
teacher
> whose Republican party controls the Legislature.
>
> The proposal in Ohio to create an academic ``bill of rights'' would
prohibit
> public and private college professors from presenting opinions as fact
or
> penalizing students for expressing their views. Professors would
>
> not be allowed to introduce controversial material unrelated to the
course.
>
> Professors dismissed the bill as unnecessary and questioned whether
its
> supporters had ulterior motives, such as wanting more conservative
professors.
>
> Similar legislation failed in California and Colorado last year, while
the
> Georgia Senate passed a resolution, which is less binding than a bill,
that
> suggests adoption. The California bill, which would affect only public
> schools, has been reintroduced and faces opposition from professors
and
> student groups. An Indiana bill is nearly identical to Ohio's.
>
> The Ohio legislation is based on principles advocated by Students for
Academic
> Freedom, a Washington, D.C.-based student network founded by
conservative
> activist David Horowitz.
>
> ``It doesn't matter a professor's viewpoint,'' Horowitz said in an
interview.
> ``They can be a good professor, liberal or conservative, provided they
pursue
> an educational mission and not a political agenda.''
>
> Mumper said he is concerned universities are not teaching the values
held by
> taxpaying parents and students.
>
> He questioned why lawmakers should approve funding for universities
with
>
> ``professors who would send some students out in the world to vote
against the
> very public policy that their parents have elected us for.''
>
> A faculty group or school committee could oversee complaints from
students who
> believe their grades were affected by a professor's bias, Mumper said.
>
> Joe White, a political science professor at Case Western Reserve
University in
> Cleveland, said students could use perceived discrimination as an
excuse to
> refuse to learn.
>
> ``We're not supposed to teach for their comfort,'' he said.
>
> Other opponents, including the American Association of University
Professors,
> say such bills could stifle debate.
>
> ``We see nothing but mischief if we invite people from outside of the
> university to somehow start monitoring what goes on inside the
classroom,''
>
> said David Patton, an AAUP member and professor emeritus of Ohio State
> University.
>
> Sen. Teresa Fedor, a Democrat from Toledo, agrees: ``Can we say 21st
century
> witch hunt and book burning?''
>
> ---
>
> On The Net:
>
> http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org
>
> http://www.aaup.org
>
> <http://www.startribune.com/copyright>
<http://www.startribune.com/copyright>
> (c) Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All
> rights reserved.
> 5355be7.jpg
>
>
>
> Will Fantle
> wfantle@sbcglobal.net
>
>