|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Responses to September 11
Peter N. Kirstein
To the Editor:Martin Snyder stated in his column, "Academic Freedom in a Time of Crisis," in the January–February issue of Academe, that both Robert Jensen of the University of Texas at Austin and each professor who spoke at an antiwar teach-in at the City College of the City University of New York should have issued "under the tense circumstances following September 11, a formal disclaimer" that they were not speaking for their universities. I strongly disagree that university professors who denounce American militarism and imperialism, regardless of the circumstances, have an obligation to declare they speak only for themselves. Snyder implies this might have inoculated these courageous dissenters from the harsh criticism that flowed from their respective president and chancellor. I seriously doubt it.
While it is clearly inappropriate for professors to assert they are spokespersons for a college or a university, in the absence of such an egregious claim, it is understood that faculty are not administrators or members of governing boards. Colleagues must engage freely in extramural political protest without this additional hindrance or qualifier. Rarely do university professors issue a disclaimer of authority in op-ed pieces or letters to the editor. Certainly, I have never heard at a single teach-in during Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, or our latest crusade against "terrorism" such self-effacing disclaimers. Academic freedom must protect and empower professors who protest the use of force as a means of resolving international disputes. They need not humble themselves or temper their remarks by an unnecessary reiteration of speaking only for themselves. It is already understood in advance with proper identification as a faculty member.
Peter N. Kirstein
(History)
Saint Xavier University
Snyder Responds
Association policy on the matter raised by Professor Kirstein is as follows. The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure notes that faculty members, when they speak as citizens, should be free of institutional censorship, but it also makes clear that they have special obligations, specifically, to be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, show respect for others’ opinions, and "make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution." The Association’s Statement on Professional Ethics states, "As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of other obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons, they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university."
Martin Snyder
AAUP Director of Planning and Development
To the Editor:Kudos to Melvin T. Steely, who had the guts and insight to point out in the January–February issue that, for all the complex foundations of terrorism, what occurred on September 11 "was the handiwork of evil men." One has the feeling that professors and thoughtful
AAUP members sometimes feel that explanations cannot be correct unless they are complex and multiperspectival. Although this is frequently a good model for scholarship and teaching, it is also nonetheless true that there are some actions whose structure is so evil that they can be described only in the simplest, most moralistic of terms. Steely follows this crystalline logic in discussing his responses to September 11 and their implications for academic freedom.
There is no contradiction in holding a strong belief in both the virtue of academic freedom and the need to militarily protect a society (America) that has been the bulwark of that freedom. Freedom cannot thrive and grow in an atmosphere in which people fear for their lives. A certain level of material stability and order is required for people to feel free to philosophically move about, express dissent, and spread their political wings. There is a dynamic, dialectical relationship between freedom and order. Steely is bullish on the state of freedom in academia, perhaps because he appreciates the need to preserve both order and freedom, and seems to acknowledge that both these values are central to the academic mission.
Richard M. Perloff
(Communication)
Cleveland State University
|