Not Chilling Freedom
Luann Wright, Barry Latzer
To The Editor:
Contrary to the impression conveyed in Academe's May-June issue, NoIndoctrination.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting, rather than impeding, open inquiry in academia.
In "Academic Freedom and National Security in Times of Crisis," Robert M. O'Neil writes that "NoIndoctrination.org invites students to post instances of what they see as political bias in the classroom." Professors must have the right to express their "take" on issues relevant to their course. What our Web site criticizes and exposes are cases where sociopolitical biases are so blatant and oppressive that reasonable alternative views are silenced or ignored—often with hostility or contempt. This kind of intimidation can be pernicious. It chills that which the AAUP describes as the very purpose of institutions of higher learning: "the free search for truth and its free exposition."
Daniel P. Denvir, author of "Reluctant Foot Soldiers: America's Undergraduates Rebuff Opponents of Academic Freedom," never interviewed anyone from NoIndoctrination.org, yet he states that our Web site has "not been enthusiastically received by today's college students." NoIndoctrination. org has been flooded—not only with postings, but with e-mails of "thanks" from students (and faculty) of all political persuasions.
Denvir also makes a completely baseless assumption that our site is the work of "right-wing activists." Far from it. NoIndoctrination.org has a bipartisan board, and its purposes are not to promote any particular ideology, but to promote the goals of higher education. Postings are checked carefully, and those merely reporting ideological objections are rejected. To date, 70 percent of the submitted postings have been rejected.
Denvir also questions what we consider "indoctrination" and extracts a few sentences from a posting without grasping the significance of the whole. One poster signed up for a course in U.S. history up to the year 1877, yet reports frequent off-topic lectures on the Middle East, modern-day presidents, abortion, and gay marriage. This we found objectionable—and so does the AAUP.
Many faculty tell us they are embarrassed and disturbed by the professorial conduct described on our Web site. Some corroborate the abuses, yet they cannot speak out. They, like our posters, are muzzled by fear.
In short, NoIndoctrination.org only wants to promote open inquiry—and is certainly not out to "chill" the academic community. There are those within academia who are doing that very well all by themselves.
Luann Wright
President and Founder
NoIndoctrination.org
To The Editor:
Daniel P. Denvir, the undergraduate who wrote "Reluctant Foot Soldiers" for the May-June issue of Academe, grossly misrepresents the position of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) on academic freedom. Had he contacted ACTA, he would have learned that we have consistently defended—and will continue to defend—academic freedom.
When, in 2001, a University of New Mexico professor was investigated for remarking, "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote," ACTA came to his defense. We stated that the professor's "comment is certainly crude and debatable, but it is not punishable," adding that, "academic freedom requires a free exchange of ideas—no matter how controversial."
That same year, when a University of Texas professor published an article that claimed that the September 11 attacks were "no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism" committed by the United States, ACTA opposed efforts to punish him, declaring: "It is the responsibility of a university to teach that the right way to counter ideas with which one disagrees is with more speech, not less." In fact, ACTA has never recommended that any professor be fired, censored, or otherwise punished.
One may criticize what someone says without denying his or her right to speak. This distinction is elementary and is critical to the whole concept of free speech. Indeed, unless we are free to criticize one another, there is no free speech. As ACTA's report, Defending Civilization, says in boldface: "And while professors should be passionately defended in their right to academic freedom, that does not exempt them from criticism." If some professors want to blame the United States for the September 11 attacks, that is their right. But they are not entitled to a professional shield against disapproval.
Strikingly absent from Denvir's article is any reference to threats to the academic freedom of those who supported the war against terrorism after September 11. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education noted that "there are a great number of cases of people being reprimanded for prowar views, versus very few cases of professors being taken to task for antiwar views." In Defending Civilization, ACTA chronicled several of these incidents.
If Academe is truly interested in assessing academic freedom in this country, it should look at all threats, not just those, real or imagined, from one side. Perhaps it could invite a student to write about the chilling effect of political correctness on campus.
Barry Latzer
Director, Higher Education Policy
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
|