State of the Profession: Academic Freedom in a Time of Crisis

By Martin Snyder

Immediately after the attacks, Robert Jensen, a tenured journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a column for the Houston Chronicle accusing the United States government of its own "massive acts of terrorism." He knew that reaction to his words was likely to be intense. Still, he must have been surprised to find among the published letters responding to his column one from his boss, Larry Faulkner, president of the University of Texas at Austin.

President Faulkner, quick to disassociate the university from Jensen’s remarks, pointed out that they were not "supported, condoned, or officially recognized by" the institution. "He [Jensen] does not speak in the university’s name and may not speak in its name." Faulkner then went on to say that, in his personal judgment, "Jensen is not only misguided, but has become a fountain of undiluted foolishness on issues of public policy."

A similar situation arose at the City College of the City University of New York. There, a group of faculty members conducted a teach-in on the terrorist attacks. Although their intent was to explain, not excuse, the heinous acts, the New York Post reported a biased account of the event. In her story, the Post reporter suggested that "the fuzzy-headed academicians must have eaten a few too many magic mushrooms," and that they were "too blind, stupid, or intellectually dishonest to tell the difference between the divisive war in Vietnam and the coming war against terrorism that’s uniting Americans."

Responding to the adverse publicity, Matthew Goldstein, CUNY’s chancellor, issued a statement expressing his dismay with those "who seek to justify or make lame excuses" for the terrorist attacks—a clear, if uninformed, reference to the faculty teach-in. He concluded his statement by noting the challenge of maintaining "our determination, resolve, and solidarity without compromising the free exchange of ideas."

The Texas and New York situations have some apparent differences, but they have much in common. In Texas a single faculty member spoke through the public media as a private citizen. In New York a group of faculty per-formed a traditional teaching function of the faculty in a campus setting. Yet, both rightly claim the protections of academic freedom—to write and speak freely without threat of reprisal (both as citizen and as scholar). Neither Jensen nor the CUNY faculty claimed to represent the views of the university, although, under the tense circumstances following September 11, a formal disclaimer to that effect might have been beneficial.

The response of the administrators in Texas and New York likewise display similarities, but perhaps an essential difference. President Faulkner of the University of Texas spoke with two voices. As university president, he disassociated the institution from Jensen’s words but affirmed Jensen’s right to express his views under the First Amendment. As private citizen, Faulkner articulated his personal disgust at Jensen’s column. The president’s statement was contained in a letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle, and, as such, appeared more as a contribution to the public debate over Jensen’s views than as an institutional attempt at intimidation.

Chancellor Goldstein’s official statement, on the other hand, was of a different sort. He spoke officially as the most senior administrator in the CUNY system. His criticism of the faculty, even if indirect, was unequivocal. Speaking later to the CUNY board of trustees, Goldstein assured board members that "nobody is going to be punished or retribution taken for any views that they have." At the same time, he claimed the right to express himself "in a free and unencumbered way," a right shared by all members of the academic community.

The problem, of course, is that on the academic animal farm some denizens are decidedly more equal than others. When the chief administrator abandons institutional neutrality and officially counters faculty views on matters beyond the running of the university, she or he sends a message, intended or not, that the free exchange of ideas and the right to dissent from the majority view may entail a very high price. The potential for retaliation is real, especially for untenured faculty members. More than after-the-fact assurances are required to alleviate the chilling effect of such statements. Only clear evidence of actual support for academic freedom can repair the damage.

Martin Snyder is AAUP director of planning and development.

 Printer-Friendly Page