Earlier this year, The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof used
his column to call upon academics to engage a wider public beyond their usual audiences. Kristof argued that our society needed the
best and the brightest among us in order to solve some of the vexing problems
we currently confront, noting the misfortune that “[S]cholars have periodically
submitted meaningless gibberish to scholarly journals — only to have the
nonsense respectfully published. ...” while concluding, “So, professors, don’t
cloister yourselves like medieval monks — we need you!”
Kristof’s views raised a number of objections from many academics
who essentially countered that many scholars already are engaging a broad public through their teaching and their writing, which often appears
beyond professional scholarly journals and in outlets like the op-ed pages of
major national newspapers, blogs, and other alternate venues. While Kristof’s opinion may have been valid in spirit
to some extent, he and some of his critics ultimately missed a major point
about the current climate on contemporary college campuses – namely how academics
increasingly are being discouraged if not out rightly punished for speaking
publicly on important topics of the day.
One needs to look no further than the case of Steven G. Salaita.
 |
| Image Steven G. Salaita from Inside Higher Ed |
For those unfamiliar with this situation, here are the basic facts. Dr. Salaita was
offered a tenured professorship at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Ultimately,
UIUC Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise voided Dr. Salaita’s appointment when she
refused to advance his nomination to the University’s Board of Trustees, which was
to vote on Salaita’s joining the UIUC faculty.
Chancellor Wise cited Dr. Salaita’s public comments via Twitter about
the ongoing violence in Gaza – comments some characterized as uncivil at best
and as anti-Semitic at worst. During the
subsequent weeks, the UIUC Board and Chancellor received criticisms that their
actions and their justifications of them on the basis of "civility" are tantamount to an attack on academic freedom, freedom of speech protections, or both.
Writing for The Chronicle of Education’s blog "Vitae", Georgia
Perimeter College Associate Professor Rob Jenkins discusses the chilling effects punitive actions such as those taken by the UIUC administration can have, stating:
I’m not denying that academic freedom is taking a beating all over the country. But what is even more endangered, it seems to me, is the right of faculty members to speak their mind outside of the classroom, off-campus, and apart from their contractual duties. In return for a paycheck, faculty members are increasingly expected to surrender their personal beliefs on controversial topics, lest—God forbid—they say something that might “embarrass the institution.”
My point here is not to weigh whether or not Dr. Salaita’s
Twitter comments constitute anti-Semitism.
Rather, I wish to express my own concern about the broad application of so-called
civility and similarly vague or ambiguous dispositional characteristics as the
basis for punitive actions against scholars and academics by the institutions they
serve or by the administrators responsible for the integrity of those institutions.
We must consistently bear in mind that colleges and
universities are institutions founded on the free exchange of ideas. Many scholars do what they do in order produce
and advance knowledge for the benefit of all of society. As such, practitioners of the various
academic disciplines should challenge conventional wisdom and speak truth to
power. Indeed, this was a motivating factor for
me in becoming an historian.
In his brilliant primer, History: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press,
2000), John H. Arnold addresses this idea, writing:
[H]istory is an argument, and arguments present the opportunity for change. When presented with some dogmatist claiming that “this is the only course of action” or “this is how things have always been,” history allows us to demure, to point out that there have always been many courses of action, many ways of being. History provides us with the tools to dissent (page 122, original emphasis).
As Dr. Salaita’s case demonstrates, punitive institutional actions
against those charged with producing and disseminating knowledge can take tremendous tolls on both the professional and the personal levels. Yet, I believe it is the work of academics and scholars - the producing and disseminating
knowledge and speaking truth to power - that can serve as a corrective to such aggressions.
